State Of Punjab v. Hari Singh And ANR.
!
" #
$
%% &
''
(
)
*&
+ ,
*'
# -
. -
,,
+ ,
*'
# -
'-'-
/ 0
! "#$%#
& ' & #() * +$,-./,$ , 00. * +,1., 00. %# ()" ' #()# +,1., 00. 2 * ,& '-'-
/ 01
#'
4 " # #
2-
"345 .'
6% -%78 869 ) 5 :5%6 -%78 .'
8
-
"345
869# 4 )44
4 .0 00.6 & # !
)# & #)) " 6+ & # (4
4 # )) ")2 #"# & )) ") ()
) .07,!!!
+ " )
4 4 6 6 #0008, "
$ )6 ( # & 9 ( 00/ 7# ) 2 & *
+,$,-./,$ ,
00. * . +,1., 00.# *"# 62 "6+
" )2 # * +,$,-./,$ 00. *
+,1., 00.6+ "
.
:!;9 : )" 4 46 " < # ' 4 )" , "At this time, Balwinder Singh son of Anokh Singh Jat resident of Kaheru, came to the police station and informed that I am resident of village Kaheru and is an agriculturist. My residential house had made in my field. Yesterday on 4.9.2000 my Jija (husband of his sister)
Balbir Singh son of Shigara Singh Jat and my nephew, Harwinder Singh son of Balbir Singh Jat residents of Bhatian Kalan, Police Station Amargarh came to our village Kaheru to meet. After taking meals at night we were sitting and talking in the house, then Harwinder Singh told me that, I am going to meet Hari Singh, who is residing near Gurdawara and after saying this Harwinder Singh left the house. When Harwinder Singh did not come back for about two hours, then I alongwith my brother.in.law Balbir Singh went towards the house of Hari Singh for enquiring. When we reached near the house of Hari Singh son of Pritam Singh Jat resident of Kaheru then it will be about 11 p.m., that the electric light in the house of Hari Singh was glowing and there was a Raula being raised inside the house. The outer door was lying open.
When we entered the house and noticed that Hari Singh having Kulhari in his hand was inflicting a blow on Harwinder Singh and uncle of Hari Singh namely Jeet Singh son of Dial Singh having Soti in his hand was inflicting a blow on Harwinder Singh when we raised Raula "Na Maro Na Mara" then Hari Singh, with in our sight Hari Singh caused the Kulhari blow holding in his hand, on the head of Harwinder Singh and both Hari Singh and Jeet Singh ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. Then Harwinder Singh went inside the room while unsteady with in our sight Harwinder Singh died at the spot. In the meantime, my nephew Nirbhey Singh son of Kashmir Singh and my elder brother Kashmir Singh also reached at the spot.
( relations with his wife Simranjit Kaur Simmi. After leaving my brother in.law Balbir Singh and brother Kashmira Singh near the dead body and accompanied with my nephew Nirbhey Singh came to the police station for giving the information. Statement has been got recorded to you. Heard and is correct. Action be taken. 5.9.2000.
Sd/.
Balwinder Singh Attested Officer Incharge P.S.Dhuri"
7 :!# )6 ( ") )6)
) /.+ +" )) ) )# )
) .0 !
+"6 + #)")44+ & # = ( )))6 ) ) ( #+
prima.facie )
) .0 8.7!
+"4 )) 6"))) 6 )) 6 4 )4 > !
) )#0" " 94 + $ 4 4# ) = )# +( # $ # " 94 ?# " ) ) 44 94 6 " 0@ >4 0>01 000
; ? ?#
, "As per the information furnished by police, alleged to be died of injuries.
The length of body was 5'.7 1⁄2′′. There was no ligature mark around neck. It was body of well built well nourished male of about 30 years, male with long hair bearing shirt, underwear, pajyama and baniyan. Rigormortis were present with postmortem staining on posterior parts.
I noted the following injuries:.
1. There is an incised wound 3 cm x 0.8 cm x bone deep on the left hand on its palmar and lateral aspect on the base of the thumb with clotted blood underlying bone was normal.
2. There was an incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.7 cm bone deep on the same side 1′′ distal to injury No.1 underlying bone was normal.
3. There was a bluish contusion mark on the left upper arm on further examination there was fracture of humerus in its middle.
4. There was an incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.8 cm x bone deep on the left leg anterior aspect on its lower 1/3rd part and on further dissection there was fracture of both bones.
5. There was an penetrating incised wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the right leg anterior aspect on its middle part underlying bone was normal.
6. There was an incised wound 4.5 cm x 0.8 cm x bone, deep on the right temporal region in an oblique position. On further dissection the underlying bone was fractured.
There was clotted blood was present in cranial cavity and laceration of the brain matter.
7. There was lacerated swelling on the left mandible region bluish in colour and on further dissection there was fracture of mandible angle.
8. There was a deep wound 1.4 cm x 0.8 cm x bane deep on right elbow region on its posterior aspect and on further dissection fracture of radial bone on its proximal part was there.
Skull scalp, membrances, brain have been described. The organs of abdomen were healthy. Stomach contained about 150 mls of liquid and pasty material. All other organs were healthy. The walls, ribs cartilages, pleurae both lungs, described in injuries.
In my opinion the death in this case had occurred due to shock and hemorrhage mainly due to injury No. 6 which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and all the injuries were antemortem in nature. The probable time that elapsed between injury and death was immediate and between death and postmortem was within 24 hours".
( ) 44 ;9 #")") ) )2 ;9
= ) 2 ;9 $#( 6
6*- 4 44) " 9)
!
),94 #
) 6) )" 6) -
) 94 ?< #
$ 4 # ?
#" ;9 ;")) 4 ) 94 ?. " #)4 )( 4 :!;9 :!
),94 # " A<4= 6# " " )4 ):4 # " " "666 " 4 0@004< " )" 2 ( 4 "( 4 6 6" '4 07>4 6 78>4
6 4'4 6" "6 "" ) & ) 6 4? #
#) " 4
6"
44 6) 4 "
6 4 6 ) " )" ) "" " " # ) & "" <) & )
4
< @
) 94 ?7 " #) "" " # , ," "
" " " 004 4 ?. " !
),94 #4 "( 4 44# ( )
6 6 # "(#6 4(
64) )" "(# " ( ))? 6 4#)) )<"4 /
) 94 ?> + * # ?-+ <( ?/+ 4 " 4 ?@ ! "94 6) #"( )6 :!;9 :4 ) ( !
),94 #4 6"
6 & )) (' & )) "* < )) "()) )) #) ) "" #)) :!# 4(" )) $
) ( # 4( )4 < " = 6 )) ) # ) #) )4 ( ") 4 6) 4< 6)#") " " 6 ) )" <#"
") 4 @
) 94 ?1 + #" ( ) (;9 B!
% " "94 ?0#""=#
) $ 0>01 000 "!
( = ) ) ),94 4#"6")( " )< 4 " 4 )4 6 4
)( 4 6
40>01 00001 000$ ( #)4
))"( ) "" 4( ) )4 )! )4 ) "( 4 "6 4
4 6 1 ) ) ( )#4 #)) ")
) ..+ +
,
"I am innocent. I am driver on a truck and so oftenly, I remain out of house on truck. Deceased had illicit relations with my wife and in my absence he used to visit my house. He came to my house in my absence and slept with my wife in my absence during night. My uncle Jit Singh awoke suddenly and when he saw deceased with my wife in an objectionable condition, out of anger, he caused injuries to deceased and gave information to the police. No witness was present on the spot. Police after reaching the spot, called the relations of the deceased and introduced false witnesses of the occurrence. I came to my village on the next day at about 11.00 a.m. from my tour on the truck, when the police arrested me and then implicated me in this false case". 0 # 4 & ")
) ..+ +
, "I am innocent. I belong to Nihang Singh sect. Hari Singh accused is my nephew. Our houses are situated in the same enclosure. Hari Singh, my nephew is a driver of Tanker.Truck and oftenly remains out of house. Deceased Harwinder Singh developed illicit relations with the wife of Hari Singh my nephew. During the night of occurrence, my nephew Hari Singh was out of station with the Tanker and in his absence deceased Harwinder Singh came to the house of Hari Singh and during night slept with his wife in an objectionable condition. During night, I noticed presence of the deceased and when I woke up, I saw deceased with the wife of Hari Singh in an objectionable condition. On this I got enraged and in the passion of anger, I caused injuries to Harwinder
Singh, due to which he died. I went to the police station and gave information to the police about the occurrence. The police came to the spot during night. Police called the relations of the deceased and later on introduced false witnesses and implicated me and my nephew in this case falsely".
C )
" )
)4 (4 6
4 6+ " 4 4 + )( ) ?.
" ?7 )))( !
)# ) " ) )) ) " " " )) ) ;( # " ) " )( 4)) " ) ( ) ( ((4 )4 + ):! )"46 + " 6 ))
6 :! #" 64
4 46, # (( 46) ()
) .0
!
+ = # )
(4 6 4
4 ))) ( )
" 6
"(
6)4 46 + . ?() 6() 46 )
+ ) 7
:!;9 : )"6
?. " 4#)) )< ) 004 0701 000)) .04 ))4
.0446# ?7 4 )# "(#:!"
( 04
0701 000)) ?@! # ) $& #$ " 006 4) # )) (6)$& $
> 04
#)"( 004 0>01 000 #6
) )6 (:!" 4 0>01 000 6 )69 ) ) > # )# )
) 4 ?. " #)4 ?7 #"" " # )
) ?. " ?7 # " 0@004 #")" ) > <4 4 ? + ))6 )" > # ?. " ?7 #) )) 9)6 4" )) ")
) ?.
" "
) )#" ?7 " ) 64 ( " 4 ( ) )) ;( # (" 6 4 ) ;( # ?0 !
% " 4 40>01 00001 000#
)4 6 ;( # ?. " )" " ?7 )" # 6 ( ))+ 2 6# + ")) ) ?. " ?7 ) )) )" 6 4 "6(
# )# :!;9 : #4( )
") " " 4
' D44 " #)) ;( #
( ) 46 ?0!% " #"" !
( = ) ) ) " ) ) 4 ) " ( ) "" #)) 4( ) " )4 );( # ) " 4 "( 4 "6 4
4 6 + ))6)" " ( " " ! ) #" 6 " 4 " " #)) 46 6 )" "( ) "" + 2 6# )( " ( ) " 6 &
) "" 4!
)# 4 (6 46) " 4( 4 4 4
' D44# " ( -
)( 4 94
) ( ) 4494
; )") )6 ?$44$ 44# ) )"
# )"
#"
" )"
4 ;( #
?$44# 4 ),94
) 6) )" 6 ) ?@! ) 6) #" < # " " " 6) 4"
") 4#" 4)
!" )"" 64 ()) ) 4< ) ) 4< )" " " )6 4"
") #" #)" " 6) / 4#+ ))6 ) 4 " 6 " 6 ) ( " 4 6"
)) " "6 " 6 " 4 ("( 9 ) " 4
' D44" ;( #)) )
< ) 4 ) # ?@! 4" " 44 )6")) ) " " 6 ?. " ?7 6
") ) # #) )( & ) ) ) "4
' D44" " ) 4# )
) #( 4
) ..+ +# )6 4 (6 ) () "" ( )!
)#& #
) )"" ) # )
);( #& < 4 4
) ..+ + )( 44 ) @ ? ) ) ) 6 + #" "
4 )2 # E 4+ 4
" , "14. As the trial Court and High Court, having appreciated the evidence on record has come to diametrically opposite conclusions, mandating herein to observe certain witness statements which may have an important bearing in this case. In the processes of appreciating the evidence at the appellate stage, we need to keep in mind the views of this Court as expressed in !
"
#$ %&'()
* () +,()- The High Court has not found in its judgment that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of PW.2 and PW.6 were either unreasonable or perverse. What the High Court has done is to make an independent reappraisal of the evidence on its own and to set aside the acquittal merely on the ground that as a result of such re.appreciation, the High Court was inclined to reach a conclusion different from the one recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. This Court has repeatedly pointed out that the mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a re. appreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal.
< evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such, which could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse: Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the court below has taken a view which is plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous."
1 !
=8 53::
8% >'
-
3461 )) 6%=%: & )) 6%:#
<1+ (
"This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question is the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed."
0 !
(" () ""
6 E 4+ #"(
) )6+ )))
4 ) " ( "
4 6+ + 2 6#4
4 .0 00.6 & # #
: 4# +,$,-./,$
00. +,1., 00.64
) # 6# # )) 6
.
+ ) )<+
7 ) ) 46 4 F . -
,, #
'-'-
/ 0
-0/ 7 #
?< 8 G8* ? G8*