Dhanna Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 12356 P&H

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                  CHANDIGARH


                                            CRA-AD-156-2022
                                            Reserved on:21.09.2022
                                            Date of Decision : 28.09, 2022


Dhanna Singh                                                   ...Appellant
                               VERSUS
State of Punjab and others                                   ...Respondents



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT


Present : Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Pakka, Advocate
          for the appellant.


         Ms. Monika Jalota, Sr. DAG, Punjab.


N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.09.2021 passed

by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar,

whereby respondents No. 2 to 7 were acquitted of the charges framed

under Sections 307, 115, 506, 120-B, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal

Code, the victim, has preferred the instant appeal before this Court

under Section 372 Cr.P.C.

The brief facts of the case are that 17.05.2016, Dhanna Singh,

Sarpanch, appellant/victim/complainant alongwith Balihar Singh

made a statement to ASI Labh Singh to the effect that at about

10.30 p.m., on 16.05.2016, a telephonic call was received by him

1 of 10

from Tarsem Singh, Member Panchayat that Ranjeet Singh @ Jeeta

and Harjeet Singh @ Sonu accused were duly armed with weapons

and were firing shots. Consequently, he should remain alert. On

getting the call, Dhanna Singh stood up and the lights were on at that

time. Harjeet Singh @ Sonu and Ranjeet Singh @ Jeeta reached there

duly armed with pistols and in order to kill him, Ranjeet Singh @

Jeeta fired on the complainant, who in order to save himself, sat

down, as a result thereto, fire passed over his head. Harjeet Singh @

Sonu also fired a shot which hit the gate of his 'kothi'. In the

meantime, his gunman/policeman was attracted there and on seeing

him, the assailants fled from the spot in their vehicle. Later, he came

to know that the shots were also fired at the shutter of the shop of

Balihar Singh and the assailants had hit the gate of Suba Singh with

the handle of the spade (dasta). Even, they threatened them in case

they stood with Dhanna Singh, they would also be killed. With these

broad allegations, the FIR in the instant case was registered.

After completion of the investigation, the challan was

presented in the competent Court of law and ultimately charge under

Sections 307, 115, 506, 120-B, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code

was ordered to be framed against the accused, to which, they pleaded

not guilty and claimed trial.

On trial, the trial Court held that the prosecution had not

been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond any

2 of 10

reasonable shadow of doubt and, consequently, the benefit of doubt

was extended to respondents No. 2 to 7 and they stood acquitted of

the charges framed against them. While impugning the said judgment

of acquittal, Dhanna Singh, Sarpanch, appellant/complainant/victim

has preferred the instant appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C., with a

prayer to overturn the impugned judgment.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have

meticulously examined the trial Court record with the able assistance

of the learned counsel for both the parties.

The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently

contended that appellant Dhanna Singh PW1, Tarsem Singh PW2 and

Balihar Singh PW3 were consistent on their statements made before

the police and also made their depositions in support of the case of

prosecution before the trial Court. Still further, very grave and serious

charges had been leveled against the respondents that they had

planned to murder the appellant by providing money to Harjeet Singh

@ Sonu and Ranjeet Singh @ Jeeta. Even, the Investigating Officer

had recovered two empty cartridges from the place of occurrence and

he had admitted the same in his examination-in-chief and the same

were exhibits Ex.PW4/C and PW4/D. It was inter-alia contended that

the impugned judgment was based on misappreciation of evidence led

by the prosecution and the same is liable to be set-aside by this Court.

3 of 10

We have also heard learned State counsel, who has also

assisted us and have taken us through various testimonies of the

prosecution witnesses as well as other evidence on record.

The entire prosecution case rests on the three star

witnesses of the prosecution, i.e. PW1 Dhanna Singh, PW2 Tarsem

Singh and PW3 Balihar Singh. As per the learned counsel for the

appellant, the three said witnesses were consistent in their depositions

before the trial Court. We have considered the said submissions made

by the learned counsel for the appellant and find no substance in the

same. In fact, the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 do not inspire

confidence and it is apparent that all three of the said witnesses had

not seen the occurrence at all. PW1 Dhanna Singh made an attempt to

support the case of the prosecution in his examination-in-chief.

However, his cross-examination during the trial had exposed the

falsehood of his testimony. He admitted in his cross-examination that

he had not seen the accused firing outside the house as he came to

know about the said fact from Balihar Singh and Suba Singh and both

of them were residents of his village. He also admitted that except

him and Balihar Singh, statement of no other person was ever

recorded by the police during the course of investigations.

Similarly, PW2 Tarsem Singh stated that he had made a

telephonic call to Dhanna Singh Sarpanch to be vigilant. Then some

persons of the village assembled and he saw two gunshots were fired

4 of 10

at the shop of Balihar Singh. The persons who had fired gun shots

fled away from the spot prior to his arrival and he did not have any

knowledge about the case except the said facts. The said witness did

not support the case of the prosecution and was cross-examined by

the learned public prosecutor. Consequently, his testimony also

showed that he had not witnessed the occurrence.

Similarly PW3 Balihar Singh stated in his cross-

examination that Ranjit Singh and Harjeet Singh came on a Verna car

alongwith other persons and gave blows with handle of the spade

(dasta) on the shutter of his shop. He went on the roof top and threw

bucket on them. Then the accused fired on the shutter of his shop but

he could not see who fired the gun-shots. Consequently, it is apparent

that this witness had also not seen the occurrence at all

From the above, it is apparent that nobody has witnessed

the occurrence and the prosecution story has been rendered doubtful.

However, the complainant arrayed so may accused and initiated

criminal prosecution. When nobody had witnessed the occurrence and

in such a situation it is a rule of prudence that when the accused are

not known to the complainant or the witnesses, it is necessary to held

test identification parade. No doubt, holding of test identification

parade is not a substantive piece of evidence, yet, it may be used for

the purpose of corroboration; for believing that a person brought

before the Court is the real person involved in the commission of the

5 of 10

crime. Since, the accused were not known to the witnesses, there was

necessity for holding test identification parade to check the veracity of

the witnesses. In the instant case, PW4 ASI Labh Singh, the

Investigating Officer in his cross-examination has revealed that no

test identification parade of any of the accused was ever got

conducted by him before any Magistrate. Consequently, there was any

evidence on record to establish the identity of the accused to prove the

charge against them.

In the instant case, admittedly, there was enmity between

the parties relating to the election for the post of Sarpanch. It has been

stated by the witnesses that Ranjeet Singh @ Jeeta and Harjeet Singh

@ Sonu had fired at PW1 Dhanna Singh with an intention to kill him.

First of all, it is observed that Dhanna Singh admitted in his

cross-examination that he had not seen the accused firing.

Consequently, if the accused had intention to kill him, they would

have certainly repeated the fires on the complainant. Still further, as

per the complainant, his gunman was attracted at the place of

occurence, when the two accused were firing shots on him.

Surprisingly, neither the said gunman retaliated by fire shots nor he

tried to apprehend the accused nor he was cited as witness, the

omission which clearly renders the prosecution case to be

unbelievable. Even the parties were admittedly inimical towards each

6 of 10

other and the possibility of false implications in such a situation

cannot be ruled out.

Still further, PW1 Dhanna Singh tried to set up a case

that the accused had entered into a criminal conspiracy to eliminate

him and also prove on record his statement dated 17.05.2016 as

Ex.PA. As per him, Atma Singh and his brothers Gurdev Singh and

Gurmail Singh @ Gila had hired the accused with an intention to kill

him and the first installment of Rs. 20,000/- was paid to Ranjeet

Singh through Hardeep Singh @ Kaka and the remaining amount

was to be paid after finishing the job, which was to be paid by

Gurdev. One person namely Depender Singh used to inform the

accused and Nitin Kalra used to supply mobile phone and sims to

Ranjit Singh. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that in

his statement dated 17.05.2016 Ex.PA, he had not stated that all the

accused had entered into a criminal conspiracy to eliminate him and

had paid Rs.20,000/- to Ranjeet Singh and remaining amount was to

be paid after the work was accomplished. He did not state that

accused Depender Singh used to give information regarding his

presence to the contract killers on the mobile phones. He had also not

stated in his statement that Nitin Kalra accused used to provide

mobile phone and sims to Ranjeet Singh. He further stated that no

facts regarding criminal conspiracy between the accused were stated

by him in his statement Ex.PA and he had no personal knowledge

7 of 10

about the said facts. He came to know about this fact from the police

and on the information provided by the police, he got these facts

recorded in his supplementary statement and he also came to know

from some persons of the village about this fact and he got the same

also recorded in his supplementary statement. Even, the said witness

was confronted with regard to his averment in examination-in-chief

about the criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused and he admitted

that he had not stated these facts in his earlier statement.

Consequently, the entire story set up by the prosecution with regard to

criminal conspiracy, hiring of accused, firing at the complainant by

them in pursuance to that appears to be doubtful. Thus, it is apparent

that the police has coined a false story just to help the complainant

illegally.

Still further, it has been stated that Ranjeet Singh @ Jeeta

and Harjeet Singh @ Sonu had not only fired at PW1 Dhanna Singh

but at other persons also with an intention to eliminate them.

However, surprisingly, no person in the instant case suffered any

injury. No doubt, empty cartridges and led were recovered from the

place of occurrence, which were taken into possession by the police

vide memo Ex.PW4/C and PW4/D by PW4 ASI Labh Singh.

However, no weapon of offence was ever recovered by the police

during the course of investigation. Consequently, mere recovery of

empty cartridges and led from the place of occurrence or any

8 of 10

other place cannot connect the accused with the alleged crime. This

also assumes significance in the light of the fact that no witness of the

prosecution even suffered injury.

The overjealousness of the police to falsely implicate the

accused, in collusion with the complainant, is also apparent from the

fact that PW4 ASI Labh Singh stated that he visited the place of

occurrence and had taken blood stains from the place of occurrence

and converted the same into parcel by sealing with his seal impression

'LS' and all memos were witnessed by ASI Tarlochan Singh and

Constable Jagtar Singh. PW5 ASI Tarlochan Singh stated that he had

also visited with ASI Labh Singh and blood stains from the place of

occurrence were lifted and converted into parcels with the seal

impression 'LS'. It is shocking to note that nobody had suffered any

injury in the instant case at all and still the police had taken blood

stains from the place of occurrence and the same were sealed also.

This clearly shows that a crude attempt had been made by the police

to falsely involve the accused in the instant case.

Consequently, we have considered the submissions made

by the learned counsel and find no substance in the same. We find no

reasons to accept the instant appeal and the same is ordered to be

dismissed being merit-less. The impugned judgment dated 02.09.2021

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar is upheld

and affirmed.

9 of 10

Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.

All pending applications, if any, are disposed off,

accordingly.

The case property, if any, may be dealt with as per the

rules after expiry of period of limitation for filing the appeal.

The trial Court record be transmitted back.

                                   ( SURESHWAR THAKUR)
                                           JUDGE



28.09, 2022                                   (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana                                         JUDGE




                                   10 of 10