Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 446
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
[DIVISION BENCH]
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramendra Jain
CRA-D-1121-DB of 2015 (O&M)
Hardial Singh
v.
State of Punjab & Ors.
{Decided on 12/01/2016}
For the Appellant:Mr. Vinod K. Kaushal, Advocate.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307--Attempt to Murder--Essential ingredients--(a) An intention or knowledge to commit the crime; (b) In pursuance thereto, with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder. (Para 26)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307--Attempt to Murder--Acquittal--Intention--Complainant and accused were not known to each other prior to the occurrence--There was no motive for accused to commit murder of complainant--Hence, it cannot be said that they had an intention to murder of complainant--Accused acquitted. (Para 26)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307--Attempt to Murder--Acquittal--Medical Evidence--All the injuries on the person of the complainant were simple in nature that too with blunt weapon--Even as per complainant blow with iron rod hit his index finger--Index finger of right hand is not a vital part and thus it cannot be said that the injury could cause death of complainant--Offence u/s 307 IPC not made out--Accused acquittal.
(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307--Attempt to Murder--Acquittal--Blow with iron rod--Complainant was found to be heavily drunk--Therefore, statement of complainant does not inspire confidence, more particularly when the iron rod with which he was assaulted was neither recovered nor produced in Court. (Para 26)
Mr. Ramendra Jain, J.:- CRM-23915-2015
Prayer in the instant application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of 45 days delay in filing the instant appeal.
Heard.
There are sufficient grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay of 45 days. Hence, the instant application is allowed and delay of 45 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned.
CRA-D-1121-DB-2015
1. Hardial Singh, appellant-complainant has preferred this appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 19.02.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar, acquitting respondents No. 2 and 3, namely; Inder Singh and Gurdeep Kaur.
2. Brief allegations of the prosecution against respondents No. 2 and 3 are that on 22.01.2010, the appellant-complainant HC Hardial Singh, was on traffic duty at Hukam Singh Road, Amritsar. Around 4.30 P.M., he saw a Mahindra Car bearing No. PB-02-AT-9401, coming at a very high speed from Majitha Road side. He gave signal to stop it. One clean shaved person later on came to be known as Kuljinder Singh resident of village Taragarh Talawan, alighted from the said vehicle and started quarreling with the appellant-complainant and abused him. The appellant-complainant when asked him to cool down, said Kuljinder Singh became enraged and torn his uniform and also broke his belt. His accomplices attacked the appellant-complainant with iron rod towards his head and in order to save himself, the appellant-complainant, raised his right hand and resultantly, the rod hit his index finger. Blood started oozing out. He was also obstructed in discharging his duties as a public servant and also criminally intimidated. Thereafter, Kuljinder Singh along with his accomplices fled away from the spot. The appellantcomplainant followed them and way laid them by stopping his motorcycle in front of their vehicle, but its driver with an intention to kill him attacked him with iron rod which hit on his index finger of his left hand. Two ladies sitting on the rear seat also gave him fist blows. The incident was witnessed by ASI Kulwinder Kumar.
3. Qua this occurrence, FIR No. 11 dated 22.01.2010, under Sections 353/307/332/ 333/186/506/279 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered at Police Station ‘A’ Division, Amritsar, against respondents No. 2 and 3 as well as their accomplices, namely; Kuljinder Singh and Navdeep Kaur, who were declared as proclaimed offenders by the learned trial Court. ASI Balkar Singh conducted the necessary investigation and prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence; took into possession the torn shirt and belt; got the appellant-complainant medico-legally examined and arrested respondents No. 2 and 3. After completion of investigation, final report was presented before the learned Area Magistrate.
4. The learned Area Magistrate, after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case for trial to the Court of Session vide order dated 25.01.2014, as the offence under Section 307 IPC is triable by the Court of Session.
5. Upon finding a prima facie case respondents No. 2 and 3 were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 307/34, 186, 353, 332, 506 IPC, by the learned trial Court to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 11 witnesses.
7. PW-1 ASI Dalwinder Singh, simply proved memo Ex. PW- 1/A vide which torn uniform and belt of the appellant-complainant were taken into possession.
8. PW-2 HC Narinder Singh, had proved memo Ex. PW-2/A vide which respondent No. 2 Inder Singh was arrested and released on bail in compliance of the order passed by this Court and memo Ex. PW-2/B vide which photocopy of the registration certificate Mark A was taken into possession by him.
9. The appellant-complainant appeared as PW-3 and supported the prosecution story.
10. PW-4 ASI Kulwinder Kumar, the eye-witn
