Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 310
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vivek Puri, J.
Rakesh Kumar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRA-S-1831-SB-2004
Decided On : 27-02-2020
Amandeep Singh Gulati, Legal Aid Counsel, for the Appellant; Sulinder Kumar, AAG, for the Respondent
The need for prompt FIR lodging, reliability of witness statements, and sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Delay in lodging FIR - Indian Penal Code - Section 308, Section 34
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for an offence under Section 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for causing injury to the complainant. The prosecution's case was based on the delay in lodging the FIR, discrepancies in witness statements, and lack of evidence connecting the appellants to the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained and raised doubts about the reliability of the prosecution's version. It also noted discrepancies in witness statements and lack of evidence connecting the appellants to the crime, leading to the benefit of doubt in favor of the appellants.
Issues: Delay in lodging FIR, discrepancies in witness statements, sufficiency of evidence
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of prompt FIR lodging and the need for a satisfactory explanation for any delay. It also highlighted the requirement for reliable and consistent witness statements and the necessity of sufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges.
JUDGMENT
Vivek Puri, J. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction dated 24.08.2004 vide which they were convicted for having committed offence punishable under Section 308 IPC read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and order of sentence dated 25.08.2004 vide which they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for having committed the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
2. The facts as put forth by the prosecution are to the effect that on 05.05.2003 at about 09:30 P.M., Dev Raj (complainant/injured) was returning back to his house after attending the marriage in B.D. Hall, Karnal. Sanjiv was accompanying him. When they reached Banso Gate, Karnal, the appellants met the complainant and stopped him. Appellant No. 1-Rakesh Kumar was armed with sword and asked the complainant as to why he had entered into a quarrel with his servant Sunil Kumar (appellant No.-3). An altercation took place between them. Vikki and Sunil Kumar (appellants No. 2 and 3) caught hold the complainant, inflicted fist blows, whereas, Rakesh Kumar (appellant No. 1) made an attempt to inflict injury on the neck with the help of sword. However, the complainant took a sudden turn and sword blow landed on his back, causing injury. Sanjiv intervened and rescued the complainant from the clutches of the appellants and he fell unconscious. The matter was reported to the police on 07.05.2003 on the basis of a complaint submitted by Dev Raj and on the basis thereof, FIR has been registered.
3. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. As the offence under Section 308 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
4. A prima facie case under Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC was made out against all the appellants. Accordingly, the charge was framed. The contents thereof were read over and explained to the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In support of its allegations, the prosecution has examined six witnesses. Dev Raj (PW2) has sustained injuries in the occurrence and Sanjiv (PW3) is an eye witness to the incident.
6. The matter was reported to the police on the basis of a complaint (Ex. PC). Dr. Pawan Kumar Choudhary (PW1) had medico legally examined the complainant/injured and following injuries were found on his person:-
'1. An incised wound 3.5 c.m. x 1cm muscle deep present on the upper side of right side of chest. 12 cm below the center of neck and 6 cm away from the right scapula. Lateral margin and 4 cm away from midline. Fresh bleeding was present.
2. An abrasion 1cm x .25 cm present on the right elbow joint on its posterior aspect. Complaining of pain and mild tenderness was present.
3. Complaining of pain on the right side of the neck on its upper part. Mild tenderness was present but no mark of external injury was seen.'
7. Ex. PA is the copy of the medico legal report. On the application Ex. PB, the doctor had opined that injury No. 1 was possible with the sword. The clothes of the injured were handed over to the police on the basis of application Ex. PC.
8. ASI Hukum Singh (PW5) has conducted the investigation of the case. He made the endorsement Ex. PD/1 on the complaint Ex. PD and on the basis thereof, FIR Ex. PD/2 was recorded. He had prepared the site plan Ex. PF depicting the place of occurrence. In pursuance of disclosure statement Ex. PH of appellant No. 1-Rakesh Kumar, the sword was recovered which was concealed under the double bed lying in the room of his residential house. The recovery has been effected in the presence of Sanjiv (PW3). Ex. PJ is the sketch of the sword and the same has been taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PE after converting the same into a parcel sealed with the seal bearing impression HS. Ex. PK is the site plan depicting the place of recovery. Constable Veer Sh
