SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(P&H) 731

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.D.Bajaj and N.K.Kapoor JJ.
Gurdev Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Appeal No. 70-DB of 1991,
Decided On : AUGUST 27, 1991

Unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and carrying the special report to the magistrate is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting that the first information report was recorded much later than the stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvement and embellishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - DELAY IN FIR - DELAY IN SPECIAL REPORT - SUSPICION OF FABRICATION - INORDINATE DELAY - WITNESSES NOT EXAMINED - EVIDENCE REJECTED - APPEAL ALLOWED.

Fact of the Case:

Accused-appellants were convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC. They appealed, arguing that the prosecution case was fabricated and that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and carrying the special report to the magistrate.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was an unexplained delay of 7 hours in lodging the FIR and a further delay of 2 hours and 30 minutes in carrying the special report to the magistrate. The court also found that the prosecution witnesses were not credible and that their evidence was contradictory. The court rejected the prosecution case and acquitted the accused-appellants.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution case was fabricated. 2. Whether there was an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and carrying the special report to the magistrate. 3. Whether the prosecution witnesses were credible.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution case was fabricated because there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and carrying the special report to the magistrate. The court also found that the prosecution witnesses were not credible and that their evidence was contradictory. 2. The court held that the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and carrying the special report to the magistrate was a circumstance which provided a legitimate basis for suspecting that the first information report was recorded much later than the stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvement and embellishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused-appellants.

Judgment

S.D.Bajaj, J.

1. Baldev Singh, resident of village Dhaipai, made the following statement to ASI Jaswant Singh of Police Station, Lambi inside Civil Hospital, Gidderbaha around 3.15 p.m. on 17th June, 1988. I am a resident of village Dhaipai. My wifes maternal parents reside at village Tharajwala. My wifes maternal grandfather Sh. Lal Singh s/o Nihal Singh used to reside with us since long. Yesterday I along with Lal Singh had come to village Tharajwala in order to meet Sh. Jeet Singh. Today morning I along with, Lal Singh and Jeet Singh both the brothers had gone to their fakar-sarwala field at village Tharajwala for creating `Vattan. When we reached the field it might be about 9-00 am. Then from the nearby heap of sticks Gurdev Singh, Maghar Singh and, Chaggar Singh sons of Thaman Singh, Jats residents or village Tharajwala armed with gandasas came, towards us hurriedly. Gurdev Singh raised a Lalkara saying that Lal Singh should not be allowed to go alive and that he be taught a lesson for taking possession of the land. Simultaneously he gave a gandasa blow with its right side on the head of Lal Singh and the same directly hit him in his head. In the meantime Maghar Singh gave a blow with his gandasa on the head of Lal Singh near the ear and at the same time Chaggar Singh gave a blow with his gandasa on the frontal aspect of the head of Lal Singh from its right side. Aa sequel of it, Lal Singh fell down on the ground. Thereafter all the three assailants kept on causing injuries to Lal Singh with their respective gandasas. The reverse and right sides of the gandasas hit Lal Singh near the ankles of his both the legs on left wrist and face. Lal Singh raised an alarm `Maar Ditta Maar Ditta (killed, killed). Shri Jit Singh and I also raised an alarm `Na Maar, Na Maar (Dont kill, Dont kill). Meanwhile Harchand Singh who was working in the nearby field arrived there running. All the three of us came forward in order to rescue Lal Singh. Consequently Gurdev Singh, Chaggar Singh and Maghar Singh ran away towards the village together with their weapons. After that we having made an arrangement for the conveyance, and taken Puran Singh Sarpanch with us had come to Civil Hospital. Gidderbaha for treatment, After reaching the Hospital Lal Singh breathed his last. The cause of grudge was that the party of Gurdev Singh had occupied the land measuring about 2 killas of Lal Singh. The possession was got delivered to Lal Singh by the Court. On account of this reason, they have caused injuries." Formal FIR No 161 was recorded on its basis in Police Station, Lambi, at 4.00 p.m. on 17th June, 1988. Special report of the occurrence reached the learned Ilaqa Magistrate at 6. 30 pm on 17th June, 1988.

2. On being charged with the commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, all the three accused pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated 3rd January, 1991, learned trial court acquitted accused Maghar Singh on the ground that he had malunited fracture of both the legs and was, therefore, unable to walk and had therefore, been unnecessarily added in the array of the accused out of eagerness on the part of the complainant party to array all the three brothers as accused. On the same evidence, however, the remaining two accused were convicted of the commission of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 3000/- each. In default of payment fine each one of the two convicted accused was ordered to undergo separately rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, both the convicted accused have jointly filed Criminal Appeal No. 70-DB of 1991 in this Court.

3. We have heard Shri Jasbir Singh, Advocate with Shri S. K. Sharma, DAG Punjab assisted by Sh. H.S. Kamboj Advocate for the complainant party and have perused the relevant record very caref
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top