Back
1990 Supreme(P&H) 886
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Harbans Singh Rai and A.P. Chowdhri, JJ.
Gurbhej Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 376-DB of 1988.
Decided On : 18 December, 1990
For the Appellant :Mr. R.S. Ghai, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Sunil Gaur, Advocate.
Delay in recording statements of witnesses, delay in receipt of special report by magistrate, and delay in sending copy of FIR to magistrate do not necessarily render the prosecution case unsustainable.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - DELAY IN RECORDING STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES - EFFECT - SECTION 161 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - DELAY IN RECEIPT OF SPECIAL REPORT BY MAGISTRATE - EFFECT - SECTION 157 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - DELAY IN RECORDING FIR - EFFECT - SECTION 154 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - DELAY IN SENDING COPY OF FIR TO MAGISTRATE - EFFECT - SECTION 157 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted of murder and other offences under sections 302, 325, 324, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that the appellants had attacked the deceased with sharp-edged weapons and caused his death. The appellants denied the charges and claimed false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the delay in recording the statements of witnesses did not render their testimony open to doubt, as the main prosecution story had been unfolded by the first informant without delay. The court also held that the delay in receipt of the special report by the magistrate and the delay in sending a copy of the FIR to the magistrate were not fatal to the prosecution case, as the investigation had started and there was no other infirmity brought to the court's notice.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in recording the statements of witnesses rendered their testimony open to doubt? 2. Whether the delay in receipt of the special report by the magistrate was fatal to the prosecution case? 3. Whether the delay in sending a copy of the FIR to the magistrate was fatal to the prosecution case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the delay in recording the statements of witnesses did not render their testimony open to doubt, as the main prosecution story had been unfolded by the first informant without delay. The court also held that the delay in receipt of the special report by the magistrate and the delay in sending a copy of the FIR to the magistrate were not fatal to the prosecution case, as the investigation had started and there was no other infirmity brought to the court's notice. 2. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 S.CC. 2304, where it was held that mere delay in despatch of the FIR is not a circumstance which can throw out the prosecution case in its entirely.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal.
ORDER
A.P. Chowdhri, J.- Gulzar Singh, 45, his two sons Gurbhej Singh, 18, and Gurdev Singh, 23, and his mother Amrik Singh, 28, and one Jagir Singh were tried under sections 302, 325, 324, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. By judgmenet and order dated August 20, 1988 the learned Sessions Judge, acquitted. Gulzar Singh but convicted the remaining accused named above. Gurdev Singh was substantively convicted under section (???) and 324, Indian Penal Code, and Amrik Singh was substantively convicted under secttion 325 Indian Penal Code. The remaining accused were convicted under the said offences with the aid of section 34, Indian Penal Code. Gurdev Singh was awarded life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default two years rigorous imprisonment under the principle offence. He was further sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default three months rigorous imprisonment under section 324, Indian Penal Code. Amrik Singh was awarded two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default six months rigorous imprisonment under section 325, Indian Penal Code. The remaining accused who were convicted with the aid of section 34, Indian Penal Code, were sentenced as follows :-
Under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code : Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default one years rigorous imprisonment.
Under section 325/34 Indian Penal Code : One year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/-; in default three months rigorous imprisonment.
Under section 324/34 Indian Penal Code : Six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-; in default 1 month rigorous imprisonment.
2. The prosecution version, according to Dharam Singh (PW 3).is that on 2.7.1987 at about 8.30 p.m. Mukhtiar Singh alias Kala was returning from the fields of Karnail Singh after doing manual work. When he reached in the open plot of Karnail Singh Kamboj at a distance of 13-14 Karams from his house, the people present in the house heard a raula that Mukhtiar Singh be caught hold of and be not allowed to go away. On hearing the above shouts, Dharam Singh (PW 3), his brother Karam Singh (PW9), their mother Pritam Kaur rushed to the spot. They found that the accused had surrounded Mukhtiar Singh. About the same time, Dharam Singhs uncle Phuman Singh also rushed to the spot. Gurbhej Singh dealt 4 Kirpan blows one after the other on the face of Mukhtiar Singh inflicting injuries on the chin twice and on both the cheeks of Mukhtiar Singh. Gurdev Singh alias Deba gave a gandasa blow on the head of Mukhtiar Singh as a result of which he fell down. Jagir Singh accused gave a gandasa blow on the head of Mukhtiar Singh when he was lying on the ground. Dharam Singh came forward to rescue his brother when Amrik Singh gave dang blows on his (Dharam Singh) left arm and left knee. Karam Singh intervened when Amrik Singh gave dang blows on both on his legs. Karam Singh raised his arms to same himself and the dang blows given by Amrik Singh fell on his arms. Their mother flung herself on Mukhtiar Singh to save him. Amrik Singh and Gulzar Singh pulled her away and Gurdev Singh gave a gandasa blow on her right ear. Gulzar Singh remained standing with his single barrel gun exhorting the co-accused not to spare the other party. Thereafter, the accused ran away with their respective weapons. Mukhtiar Singh died on the spot. Chowkidar Bhupa and Harbans Singh came to th spot after arranging for a trolly which was driven by Karnail Singh and leaving Bhupa and Harbans Singh at the spot to guard the dead body injured Karam Singh and Pritam Kaur were removed to P.P. Shatrana 7 Kms. aways, Head Constable Parmal Singh (PW 10) recorded the statement of Dharam Singh (PW 3) concluding the same at 10.30 p.m. He then forwarded a copy of the statement to Police Station Pratan another 10 Kms away for registration of the first information report. Sub Inspector Lal Singh entered the FIR at 12.15 a.m. copy of the
