State Of Punjab vs Harwinder Singh And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 8902 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

State Of Punjab vs Harwinder Singh And Ors on 26 April, 2024

Author: Sureshwar Thakur

Bench: Sureshwar Thakur

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057447-DB




CRA-D-303-DBA-2004
                                         -1-
                                                               2024:PHHC:057447-DB


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                          CRA-D-303-DBA-2004
                                          Decided on:- 26.04.2024


The State of Punjab                            ....Appellant

                    Versus

Harwinder Singh and another                    ...Respondents


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
        HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI

Present:-     Mr. Eklavya Darshi, DAG, Punjab.

              Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate,
              Legal Aid Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2.

                    *****

AMARJOT BHATTI, J.

1. The appellant-State of Punjab has filed appeal against judgment

of acquittal dated 11.07.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge

(Adhoc), Ludhiana in Sessions Case bearing No. 108 dated 12.01.2002, titled

as "State Vs. Harwinder Singh and another" in FIR No. 71 dated 24.10.2001

under Section 364/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') registered

at Police Station Sudhar, District Ludhiana.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.10.2001, ASI Labh Singh

along with police party was on patrol duty, when at about 06:00 pm Lal Singh

complainant met him on the bridge of drain in the area of village Dhapai and

got his statement recorded. Complainant stated that he is resident of village

Chaminda, P.S. Sudhar and is an agriculturist. On 24.10.2001 at about 04:00

pm, he was standing at bus stand of his village for boarding bus. Harwinder

1 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057447-DB

CRA-D-303-DBA-2004

2024:PHHC:057447-DB

Singh son of Lachhman Singh and Ajit Singh son of Joginder Singh came

there and had an altercation with him. They wanted to take him to the land in

dispute and in that course they grappled with him. In the meantime, Dilshad

Singh son of Mohinder Singh came there and he was holding a rope. They all

tied him with a rope and forcibly took him to the residence of Harwinder

Singh. Jasbir Kaur, daughter-in-law of complainant also came there but she

was threatened due to which she ran away. However, she informed the police

of police post Jodhan, from where Constable Albel Singh and Constable

Gurmit Singh reached at the spot. On seeing the police officials, Harwinder

Singh, Ajit Singh and Dilshad Singh ran away and Lal Singh was rescued. His

statement was recorded and after making endorsement, ruka was sent for

registration of formal FIR.

Investigation was commenced. Rough site plan of place of

occurrence was prepared. Cot and rope with which complainant was tied were

taken into police possession. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Search

of all accused was conducted and when police party reached canal bridge

situated in the area of village Dhaipai, all the three accused were seen coming

from the side of village Sarabha. On identification by complainant Lal Singh,

accused persons were apprehended. Their medical examination was

conducted from Civil Hospital, Pakhowal. After completion of investigation,

challan was presented against Harwinder Singh, Ajit Singh and Dilshad Singh

in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon.

3. The accused were supplied complete set of copies of challan

report as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Since the offence under

Section 364 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore,

2 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057447-DB

CRA-D-303-DBA-2004

2024:PHHC:057447-DB

learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon committed the case to the

Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana for trial vide commitment order

dated 21.12.2001.

4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, after hearing

arguments, framed charge-sheet against accused persons under Section 364 of

IPC, which was read over and explained to them in simple language to which

they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove the facts of case, prosecution examined

complainant Lal Singh as PW1, Jasbir Kaur as PW2, Satish Kumar,

Draftsman as PW3, Dr. Ramesh Chand, Medical Officer as PW4, Constable

Gurmit Singh as PW5, Varinder Singh, Clerk, Judicial Record Room,

Ludhiana as PW6, Constable Albel Singh as PW7, HC Harmesh Kumar as

PW8, ASI Labh Singh, Investigating Officer as PW9. Thereafter, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor closed the prosecution evidence on 08.05.2003.

However, during the pendency of trial, accused Ajit Singh

expired.

6. Statements of accused Harwinder Singh and Dilshad Singh were

recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating evidence

put to them and pleaded innocence and false implication on account of land

dispute.

7. In defence, accused examined only one witness namely Jaggar

Singh, Ex-Sarpanch as DW1.

8. After hearing arguments advanced by learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for State and learned counsel representing accused persons,

Harwinder Singh and Dilshad Singh were acquitted of the charge-sheet

3 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057447-DB

CRA-D-303-DBA-2004

2024:PHHC:057447-DB

framed against them under Section 364 of IPC vide judgment dated

11.07.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Ludhiana.

9. Feeling aggrieved of this judgment of acquittal, present appeal

has been filed by State of Punjab.

10. We have heard arguments advanced by learned State counsel and

learned legal aid counsel representing respondents No. 1 and 2 and have gone

through the record carefully with their able assistance.

11. Learned State counsel took the stand that judgment of acquittal

dated 11.07.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc),

Ludhiana is without proper appreciation of facts of the case and the evidence

produced by prosecution. The statements of victim Lal Singh PW1 and his

daughter-in-law Jasbir Kaur PW2 have been wrongly ignored. There is direct

evidence to the occurrence which clearly shows that Lal Singh was forcibly

abducted by Harwinder Singh, Ajit Singh and Dilshad Singh by tying him

with a rope and was confined in the house of Harwinder Singh

respondent/accused No. 1. Said Lal Singh was beaten up. The entire

occurrence is duly proved by the aforesaid witnesses. Jasbir Kaur PW2

informed the police and ultimately Lal Singh was rescued by police i.e. Ct.

Albel Singh examined as PW7 and Ct. Gurmit Singh examined as PW5. Both

these witnesses categorically stated that when they reached the house of

Harwinder Singh, Lal Singh was rescued, whereas, respondents/accused

managed to escape from there. Both respondents/accused were duly identified

by complainant Lal Singh PW1 as well as his daughter-in-law Jasbir Kaur

PW2.

4 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057447-DB

CRA-D-303-DBA-2004

2024:PHHC:057447-DB

HC Harmesh Kumar PW8 confirmed that on the basis of

information received by him on telephone, he had recorded DDR No. 14

dated 24.10.2001 Ex.PW8/1 and thereafter, Ct. Albel Singh examined as PW7

and Ct. Gurmit Singh examined as PW5 were directed to reach the spot from

where Lal Singh was rescued. The MLR of Lal Singh is proved on record by

Dr. Ramesh Chand, Medical Officer, R.H. Mansooran as PW4. The said MLR

is Ex.PF and pictorial diagram is Ex.PF/1. The scaled site plan of place of

occurrence is proved by Satish Kumar, Draftsman as PW3, which is Ex.PE.

The investigation was carried out by ASI Labh Singh who has been examined

as PW9. The learned trial Court has acquitted both the respondents/accused

by referring to minor discrepancies in the statements of witnesses examined

by prosecution. It is argued that judgment of acquittal is based on surmises

and conjectures and it has resulted into grave miscarriage of justice. From the

evidence led by the prosecution, charge framed against both the

respondents/accused under Section 364 of IPC is duly proved on record,

therefore, they are liable to be convicted thereunder. It is, thus, submitted that

judgment of acquittal dated 11.07.2003 passed by learned trial Court may be

set aside by accepting the present appeal.

12. On the other hand, learned legal aid counsel representing the

respondents No. 1 and 2 pointed out that both the respondents including Ajit

Singh who had expired during pendency of trial were falsely implicated in

this case due to land dispute which was already going on between them. The

testimonies of Lal Singh complainant PW1 and his daughter-in-law Jasbir

Kaur PW2 were not found to be reliable by learned trial Court. There are

major discrepancies regarding the manner occurrence took place and the way

5 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057447-DB

CRA-D-303-DBA-2004

2024:PHHC:057447-DB

Lal Singh was rescued by the police. Ct. Gurmit Singh PW5 and Ct. Albel

Singh PW7 had allegedly rescued the complainant Lal Singh. Out of them Ct.

Albel Singh was declared hostile. Even these witnesses did not establish the

presence of respondents/accused when they allegedly rescued Lal Singh. The

MLR proved on file by Dr. Ramesh Chand PW4 was rightly appreciated and

considered by learned trial Court. There was no independent corroboration to

the statements of prosecution witnesses. In fact, respondents were falsely

implicated on account of their land dispute which is further confirmed from

the copy of judgment and decree dated 30.04.2001 in Civil Suit No. 559 dated

14.12.1999 proved on record as Ex.PC and Ex.PD respectively. The

respondents had examined Ex-Sarpanch Jaggar Singh as DW1 who has fully

supported the case of respondents/accused. His testimony cannot be ignored.

Thus appeal preferred by State against judgment of acquittal is without any

basis and it deserves dismissal.

13. We have considered the arguments advanced before us and

carefully scrutinized the evidence on record. The present appeal has been

preferred against the judgment of acquittal in favour of Harwinder Singh and

Dilshad Singh respondents No. 1 and 2, in which they have been acquitted of

the charge framed against them under Section 364 of IPC. The FIR was

registered on the statement of Lal Singh who stated that he was present at Bus

Adda of village Chaminda for boarding a bus when Harwinder Singh and Ajit

Singh came and they wanted to take him to the land in dispute. They had a

scuffle with him. In the meantime, Dilshad Singh came with a rope. They tied

him with a rope and forcibly took him to the house of Harwinder Singh,

where he was tied with a cot and was also given beating. As per the version of

6 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057447-DB

CRA-D-303-DBA-2004

2024:PHHC:057447-DB

Lal Singh, his daughter-in-law Jasbir Kaur reached on the spot but she was

threatened and told to go away. She had informed the police of police post

Jodha on telephone and ultimately he was rescued by two police officials

namely Ct. Albel Singh and Ct. Gurmeet Singh. With these allegations,

respondents Harwinder Singh, Dilshad Singh along with Ajit Singh were

charge-sheeted under Section 364 of IPC. During trial, Ajit Singh expired,

whereas, respondents No. 1 and 2 were acquitted vide impugned judgment

dated 11.07.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc),

Ludhiana.

It is settled proposition of law that it is for the prosecution to

prove the guilt of accused beyond the shadows of reasonable doubt. Thus, the

prosecution was to lead convincing, trustworthy evidence to prove the guilt of

accused facing trial in this case. Minor discrepancies bound to occur with the

passage of time and the same can be ignored if the testimony of witnesses is

trustworthy. Gainful reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case title "Yogesh Singh versus

Mahabeer Singh & Ors." 2016(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 753, where in para

No.29, it was held as under :-

"29. It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state that every

7 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057447-DB

CRA-D-303-DBA-2004

2024:PHHC:057447-DB

omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission."

In the case in hand, prosecution has examined Lal Singh,

complainant as PW1 who has narrated the occurrence as stated by him in the

statement given before the police Ex.PA. During cross-examination, he was

confronted with his statement Ex.PA, where Lal Singh PW1 tried to give

improved version by alleging that he was given beating and accused pulled

his beard. He stated that it took about 20 minutes for the accused to take him

from bus stand to the house of Harwinder Singh. He raised hue and cry. Some

persons heard the alarm raised by him but nobody dared to rescue him. The

cross-examination of this witness further shows that the road leading to the

house of Harwinder Singh from Bus Adda is a thoroughfare and there are

houses of others in that area. Regarding this, Jasbir Kaur PW2 sole eye

witness stated differently that 10-12 persons had collected there and some of

them tried to rescue Lal Singh. She further claimed that when Lal Singh was

rescued, he was not in his full sense, whereas, Lal Singh as PW1 did not say

anything in this regard.

Learned trial Court further considered the testimony of Jasbir

Kaur PW2 with a doubt where during cross-examination she could not tell

8 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057447-DB

CRA-D-303-DBA-2004

2024:PHHC:057447-DB

from whose house she had called the police nor she could tell the phone

number on which the information was given to the police. She nowhere stated

that she raised hue and cry seeking help of the neighbours. The evidence of a

closely related witness is required to be scrutinized and appreciated carefully.

Apart from the testimony of these witnesses, the prosecution could not

examine any independent witness of the locality to prove the occurrence. The

learned trial Court rightly concluded that it was highly improbable that a

person was being forcibly abducted in a broad day light on a thoroughfare but

nobody came for his rescue nor anybody stepped into the witness box to

prove the occurrence.

14. It is the case of prosecution that Ct. Gurmit Singh examined as

PW5 and Ct. Albel Singh examined as PW7 were deputed to reach on the

spot. Ct. Gurmit Singh PW5 in his examination-in-chief stated that when he

reached the house of Harwinder Singh, Lal Singh was found present lying on

a cot. He further stated that on seeing the police party, accused ran away. He

further stated that Lal Singh was untied from the said cot and was told to

intimate the occurrence to the SHO. This witness further stated that they tried

to chase the accused but failed to catch them. He identified the accused facing

trial in this case. However, during cross-examination, this witness stated that

they were brought to the house of Harwinder Singh by daughter-in-law of Lal

Singh. He further stated that the door of the house of Harwinder Singh was

closed but not bolted from inside. Lal Singh was lying on a cot but the ropes

were already lying untied. He further stated that when they reached the house,

nobody was present in that room. Accused had fled away from the spot prior

to their arrival. Therefore, this witness has taken contradictory stand in his

9 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057447-DB

CRA-D-303-DBA-2004

2024:PHHC:057447-DB

examination-in-chief as well as during his cross-examination.

The other witness examined by the prosecution was Ct. Albel

Singh PW7. He during his examination-in-chief stated that when the police

party reached there, some persons ran away but he did not know those

persons. He further claimed that Lal Singh was present in the house of

Harwinder Singh who was sitting there but he was not tied. This witness was

declared hostile by the prosecution and was subjected to cross-examination.

During cross-examination, Ct. Albel Singh claimed that he did not enter the

house of Harwinder Singh. He did not see the accused persons who were

arrested later on by ASI Labh Singh. Therefore, the testimony of these two

witnesses was also contradictory to the prosecution version.

15. In the case in hand, the ocular version of prosecution witness Lal

Singh PW1 did not match with the medical record proved on file. Dr. Ramesh

Chand PW4 has proved the MLR of Lal Singh which is Ex.PF and the

pictorial diagram is Ex.PF/1. As per this MLR, he suffered following

injuries :-

"1. Abrasion 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm superficial index finger left hand.

2. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm superficial right elbow."

PW4 Dr. Ramesh Chand during his cross-examination

categorically stated that injury No. 1 could not be received by tying him with

a rope. Lal Singh claimed that his arms were tied and then he was tied with

cot. However, there was no mark of injury in the shape of abrasions etc. on

his wrist or arms. The alleged injuries are merely small superficial abrasions

on index finger and right elbow. In the case in hand, Lal Singh was not taken

to the hospital for medical examination either by Ct. Gurmit Singh PW5 or

10 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057447-DB

CRA-D-303-DBA-2004

2024:PHHC:057447-DB

Ct. Albel Singh PW7. The statement of Lal Singh was recorded by ASI Labh

Singh on the same day at about 07:00 pm. Even he did not take Lal Singh to

the hospital for his medical examination. The MLR Ex.PF shows that Lal

Singh went to the hospital for his medical examination at 10:00 pm,

accompanied by Pardeep Singh. This fact further creates doubt regarding any

injury received by him in the alleged occurrence.

16. It is established on record that there was dispute between Lal

Singh and respondents/accused regarding a piece of land. The

respondents/accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

categorically stated that there was a shamlat land in possession of Harwinder

Singh accused where he was storing manure. They further alleged that the

complainant wanted him to vacate the said land and for that Lal Singh was

putting pressure on them. The prosecution examined Varinder Singh, Clerk,

Judicial Record Room, Ludhiana as PW6 who has proved on record copy of

judgment in Civil Suit No. 559 of 14.12.1999 decided on 30.04.2001, case

title "Lal Singh versus Gurmeet Singh and Harvinder Singh alias Pilla" in a

suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encroachment or

raising construction in the land as detailed in the said judgment. Therefore,

the land dispute between Lal Singh complainant and the respondents/accused

No. 1 and 2 is duly established on record. It cannot be ignored that motive is a

double edged weapon. It can be a reason for committing a crime as well as for

false implication. Therefore, the prosecution was required to prove the guilt of

respondents/accused No. 1 and 2 by leading convincing evidence on record.

17. The learned trial Court while passing judgment of acquittal dated

11.07.2003 rightly analysed all the facts of the case and evidence led by the

11 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057447-DB

CRA-D-303-DBA-2004

2024:PHHC:057447-DB

prosecution.

Considering the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any reason

to interfere in the judgment of acquittal dated 11.07.2003 passed by learned

trial Court. Same is upheld accordingly.

18. Appeal preferred by appellant-State of Punjab is accordingly,

dismissed.

19. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of

accordingly.

        (AMARJOT BHATTI)                        (SURESHWAR THAKUR)
            JUDGE                                      JUDGE

 26.04.2024
lalit

                     Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
                     Whether reportable:        Yes/No




                                    12 of 12