Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nand Lal vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 20 December, 2022
CRR-3881-2015 (1)
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-3881-2015
Reserved on: 13.12.2022
Date of Decision: 20.12.2022
Nand Lal ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Sama, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
None for respondent No.2.
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the judgment
20.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Fazilka, whereby while setting aside the judgment and order
dated 14.11.2014, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,
Fazilka, respondent No.2 was acquitted of the charges framed
against him.
Vide the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 14.11.2014, respondent No.2-Jaswant Singh was
convicted of the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC
and sentence to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- each, under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and RI for one
year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 338 IPC,
besides default stipulations.
1 of 4
CRR-3881-2015 (2)
Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that
the learned lower Appellate Court, has allowed the appeal filed
by respondent No.2 solely on the ground that there was delay of
21 days in lodging the FIR and that it further erred in law in
holding that when the petitioner was admitted in the hospital,
an eye witness (Lachhman Dass) could have lodged the FIR. It is
further submitted that the petitioner and respondent No.2, being
the residents of the same village, talks of compromise were going
on between them and when the matter could not mature, the
petitioner was left with no alternative except to lodge the present
FIR.
It is further submitted that on the basis of the
evidence on record, it stood proved before the trial Court that it
was respondent No.2-Jaswant Singh, who while driving his
motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, had stuck his
motorcycle with that of the petitioner due to which he fell down
and suffered a fracture on his leg besides receiving various other
injuries. It is yet further submitted that the delay in registration
of the FIR, had been dealt with by the trial Court and it was
found that the petitioner was admitted in Amandeep Hospital on
10.10.2011 and was discharged on 20.10.2011 and the said
version was corroborated by PW1-Lachhman Dass, an eye
witness besides the medical records; that in his statement
Exhibit P.1, the complainant had categorically stated that the
talks for compromises were going on, but the same could not
mature and that the delay of 21 days, in such circumstances,
2 of 4
CRR-3881-2015 (3)
could not have been held to be fatal to the case of the
prosecution.
It is argued that learned Appellate Court has set
aside the said well reasoned finding by holding that if injured-
Nand Lal was admitted in the hospital, PW1-Lachhman Dass,
who was stated to be an eye witness, could have got the FIR
registered, but he did not inform the police in this regard and
rather his statement was only recorded on 31.10.2011 and that
such findings of the Appellate Court suffer from patent illegality.
On the other hand, learned State counsel, while
defending the findings recorded by the Appellate Court, submits
that in the given circumstances, the Appellate Court, took the
most plausible view and rightly held that the delay of 21 days in
lodging the FIR was unexplained.
However, there is no representation on behalf of
respondent No.2.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned State counsel and have also gone through the
judgments and order passed by the Courts below.
The present petition has been pending since 2015.
The petitioner avers that the delay of 21 days in lodging the FIR
was duly explained. However, on the other hand, the Appellate
Court, has held contrary.
The Appellate Court has found that though the
accident is stated to have taken place on 10.10.2011, yet no
information was given to the police and that information in this
regard was given to the police only on 31.10.2011. It was further
3 of 4
CRR-3881-2015 (4)
found that though the petitioner had pleaded that the talks of
compromise were going on between the parties, yet no evidence
in this regard, was produced on record. It was further held that
even the petitioner was discharged from the hospital on
20.10.2011, but still he had waited till 31.10.2011 in getting the
FIR registered.
This Court finds no fault with the findings recorded
by the Appellate Court. On the face of the evidence of the
petitioner-being injured in the matter, coupled with other
evidence on record, including that of the IO-Om Parkash, who
stated that he got the information regarding the accident only on
31.10.2011, the view taken by the Appellate Court that the delay
in registration of the FIR was not explained, calls for no
interference. Rather, in the given facts and circumstances and
the evidence on record, the said view seems to be a rational one.
No other point has been urged.
In view of the above, finding no merit in the present
petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
20.12.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
ds JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
