Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagtar Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 18 September, 2024

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                     CRA-D-1007-DB-2010 (O&M)                                                    -1-




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                              CHANDIGARH

                                                              CRA-D-1007-DB-2010 (O&M)
                                                              Date of decision: 18.09.2024


                     JAGTAR SINGH & ANR                                   ......Appellants
                                                  Versus
                     STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS                                .........Respondents


                     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

                     Present:          Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate for appellant.

                                       Mr. Rohit Bansal, Senior DAG, Punjab.

                     SUDHIR SINGH, J.

The present appeal filed by the complainants is directed

against the judgment dated 18.05.2010 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby respondents No.2 to 8 have been

acquitted of the charges framed against them.

2. The prosecution case was that on 03.08.2004 at about 05:00

PM, Sukhdev Singh, Harminder Singh, Gurjant Singh and 12 other

persons belonging to Ramdasia caste, present at chowk of Village

Kamalpur, had been talking to each other when two cars bearing

registration Nos. HR-41-A-4955 and PB-42-0028 came there from the

side of Village Safipur. Harjit Singh, Kamaljit Singh and Bhupinder

Singh along with 5/6 other persons, armed with rifles, swords and

gandasas etc., alighted from the aforesaid cars and raised Lalkaras and

rushed towards the complainant party with the intention to kill them.

authenticity of this order/judgment.

CRA-D-1007-DB-2010 (O&M) -2-

Accused-Kamaljit Singh fired a shot from his .12 single barrel rifle,

which landed on the lower abdomen of Harminder Singh @ Bhola; that

the accomplices of Kamaljit Singh fired a shot from his rifle, which

landed on the testicles of Gurjant Singh; that both Harminder Singh and

Gurjant Singh fell down; that the above said accused fired 7-8 more shots

from their fire arms, which had caused injuries to the persons belonging

to complainant party; that the other accomplices of the above said

assailants gave injuries to the complainant party with Gandasas and

Kirpans. Thereafter, upon hearing the noise of the shots, a lot of people

had gathered at the spot whereafter the said assailants had fled from the

spot along with their respective weapons. The incident was stated to have

taken place as a counter to an occurrence on 02.08.2004, when death

anniversary of Baba Ajmer Singh was being celebrated in the village and

couple of boys belonging to the accused party had teased the girls of the

village and the said boys had been scolded by the complainant party. The

said boys had provoked their relations and friends to avenge upon the

complainant party. In the said incident, Gurjant Singh and Parminder

Singh succumbed to their injuries at the spot, whereas other injured

persons were removed to the hospital, where they had been medico

legally examined. On the aforesaid statement, the FIR was registered

under Sections 148, 302, 307 read with Section 149 IPC and under

Section 3(x) of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 25 of Arms Act.

3. The investigation was conducted and the accused were

arrested and thereafter charges against the accused were framed under

Sections 148, 302, 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3(x)

authenticity of this order/judgment.

CRA-D-1007-DB-2010 (O&M) -3-

of the SC/ST Act and Section 25 of Arms Act. The accused pleaded not

guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses, namely,

PW1-Dr. Kripal Singh; PW1-Dr. Makhan Singh; PW3-Dr. Surjit Singh;

PW4-Dr. Rajanbir Singh; PW5-Dr. P.C. Goyal; PW6-Dr. Anoop Kumar,

KAD; PW7-Sukhdev Singh; PW8-Ajaib Singh; PW9-Nek Singh; PW10-

Jaswinder Singh; PW11-Dharminder Singh, Draftsman; PW12-Surinder

Kumar, Clerk at SDM Office; PW13-Subhash Chand and PW14-

Inspector Tejinder Singh. In documentary evidence, documents Exhibits

P.1 to P.192 were tendered. Thereafter the statements of the accused

under Section 313 were recorded. The entire incriminating material was

put to them, which they denied and pleaded innocence. However, no

evidence was led by the defence.

5. The learned trial Court, after scrutinizing the entire evidence

on record vide the impugned judgment and order convicted accused

Kamaljit Singh under Sections 302, 307 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act

and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of

Rs.10,000/- each under Sections 302 IPC and 302/149 IPC; to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/- each

under Section 307 IPC and 307/34 IPC; to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section

25 of the Arms Act and to undergo RI for one year under Section 148

IPC. However, the respondents No.2 to 8 (accused No.2 to 7 before the

trial Court) were acquitted of the charges framed against them on the

following grounds:-

authenticity of this order/judgment.

                      CRA-D-1007-DB-2010 (O&M)                                                -4-


                                       (1)      Accused other than Harjit Singh and Kamaljit

Singh, were not named in the FIR and they were also not

subjected to the identification parade.

(2) Except PW-7-Sukhdev Singh (complainant), no

other witness has named respondent Nos. 2 to 8 as

assailants or them being members of the unlawful

assembly and thus, the prosecution has failed to establish

the identity of the said accused.

(3) The incident was alleged to have taken place on

03.08.2004 at 05:00 PM, whereas copy of FIR (Ex.P-

120), reached Magistrate only on 04.08.2004 at 07:40

PM i.e. after a gap of 14 hours and the prosecution has

not been able to explain the said delay.

(4) Accused-Harjit Singh has falsely been

implicated in the case and the prosecution has

continuously tried to improve upon its case by

introducing new accusations like the complainant party

having been insulted in the name of their castes and,

thus, Harjit Singh was held to be not being member of

the unlawful assembly.

(5) The disclosure statements of the accused did not

inspire any confidence as no recovery of the weapons

allegedly used in the occurrence was effected pursuant to

the said disclosure statements.

authenticity of this order/judgment.

CRA-D-1007-DB-2010 (O&M) -5-

6. Vide order dated 07.10.2010 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench

of this Court, application seeking leave to appeal filed by the appellants

(complainants) was allowed and the appeal was admitted.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently

argued that the very approach of the learned trial Court in acquitting the

respondents No.2 to 8 is legally untenable as it has wrongly been held

that the said respondents were not part of the unlawful assembly. It is

further submitted that once the accused after their arrest had been

identified in the police station by the complainant and other witnesses,

there was no requirement for conducting a test identification parade as

the identity of the accused was never in dispute. It is further argued that

indisputably in the occurrence, two persons had died and, therefore, it is

not at all plausible that only one person could commit the murder of two

persons and will cause injuries to 16-17 other persons.

8. Learned State counsel also supported the submissions made

by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, none is present on

behalf of respondents No.2 to 8.

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and careful

perusing the record of the case, the following question arises for

determination:-

"Whether the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court against respondents No.2 to 8 is legally sustainable?".

10. It may be noticed that against his conviction and sentenced,

accused Kamaljit Singh had filed CRA-D-617-DB-2010 before this

Court. Vide order dated 14.11.2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of

authenticity of this order/judgment.

CRA-D-1007-DB-2010 (O&M) -6-

this Court, the said appeal has been disposed of as having abated, due to

the death of the accused-appellant therein.

11. We are now to examine whether there is sufficient evidence

on record which has been overlooked and not taken into consideration by

the learned trial Court while acquitting the accused-respondents No.2 to 8

and extending them benefit of doubt.

12. The testimony of three witnesses i.e. PW-7 Sukhdev Singh

(complainant) PW-8 Ajaib Singh and PW-14 Jatinder Singh, is very vital

to determine the question framed above. Ex.P1/20 is the copy of the FIR.

In the said FIR, the name of respondents No.2 to 8 were not mentioned. It

was only subsequently during the testimony of the complainant PW-7

Sukhdev Singh in the Court that he had disclosed the name of the said

accused-respondents. The said witnesses had admitted that the names of

the accused-respondents were not mentioned in the FIR.

13. Though this witness had deposed that he had disclosed the

names of the accused to the police, as noticed above, yet he admits that

he had not named the said respondents in the FIR. PW-8 Ajaib Singh

stated that he had received injuries in the incident, but he had not deposed

that the accused-respondents had participated in the crime. PW-9 Nek

Singh had though stated that there were 12 persons involved in the crime

but he did not remember their names. In his cross-examination the said

witness had stated that no test identification parade was conducted by the

police. PW-14 Inspector Tejinder Singh stated that he did not make any

arrangement for the test identification parade in the case.

14. Based on the aforesaid evidence, wherefrom it is clear that

the identity of accused-respondents No.2 to 8 was not established, we

authenticity of this order/judgment.

CRA-D-1007-DB-2010 (O&M) -7-

find no illegality in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in this

regard. The testimony of PW-7 Sukhdev Singh (complainant) and PW-9

Nek Singh would show that the number of assailants had kept increasing,

as somewhere they had been stated to be 8-9 in number and at some other

places as 10-15. This testimony of the aforesaid material witnesses castes

a huge doubt on the accused of the prosecution. Still further, it is settled

law that the disclosure statements made by the accused under Section 27

of the Evidence Act, can be used against the accused, if any, discovery of

a new fact or the weapons used in the crime, is effected so as to connect

the accused with the crime. In the instant case, except two accused i.e.

Kamaljeet Singh and Harjit Singh, no other accused were named in the

FIR and they were subsequently arrested. As per the prosecution case,

they had suffered disclosure statements during the investigation.

However, on the basis of the evidence on record, the trial Court has

found that the recovery made from the said witnesses was not of the

weapons, which were allegedly used in the crime. Thus, on this ground as

well, the case of the prosecution was found to be doubtful. We find that

the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, are based on evidence on

record. It could not be pointed out that any evidence has been misread or

not taken into consideration. The issue framed above, is answered

accordingly.

15. While deciding an appeal against acquittal in a criminal case,

the primary task with which the appellate Court is entrusted is to find out

whether the findings in the impugned judgment are perverse, illegal,

irrational and against the principles of natural justice. Once the appellate

Court comes to the conclusion that the grounds on which the judgment is

authenticity of this order/judgment.

CRA-D-1007-DB-2010 (O&M) -8-

based are not perverse, the scope of appeal against acquittal is limited,

considering the fact that the presumption of innocence which is available

with an accused, gets further strengthened by the finding of a Court. The

Hon'ble Apex Court in Mrinal Das Vs. State of Tripura, (2011) 9 SCC

479, has held as under:-

"13. It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, it being the final court of fact, is fully competent to reappreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, the law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal.

14. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons"

for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. ... ..."

16. In the case of Ghurey Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008)

10 SCC 450, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-

"The trial court has the advantage of watching the demeanour

authenticity of this order/judgment.

CRA-D-1007-DB-2010 (O&M) -9-

of the witnesses who have given evidence, therefore, the appellate court should be slow to interfere with the decisions of the trial court. An acquittal by the trial court should not be interfered with unless it is totally perverse or wholly unsustainable."

17. Thus, an order of acquittal is to be interfered with only for

compelling and substantial reasons. In case if the order is clearly

unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference. But where there

is no perversity in the finding of the impugned judgment of acquittal, the

appellate Court must not take a different view only because another view

is possible. It is because the trial Court has the privilege of seeing the

demeanour of witnesses and, therefore, its decision must not be upset in

absence of strong and compelling grounds.

18. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present appeal,

the same is hereby dismissed.

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

[ SUDHIR SINGH ] JUDGE