Appeal against conviction and seven-year rigorous imprisonment for attempted murder. Appellant was absent; appeal dismissed under Bani Singh guidelines following Court scrutiny confirming prosecution evidence and sentence adequacy.
The criminal appeal was dismissed; the impugned conviction and sentence were upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRA No.1051 SB of 2000 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA No.1051 SB of 2000 Date of decision: 30.8.2012
Balbir Singh alias Titu
....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: None for the appellant.
Mr.Rundraneel Bhardwaj, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)
2
CRA No.1051 SB of 2000
@ Titu lodged a protest with Immamuddin with regard to the fact that a few days back, he caught hold him and thus facilitated Manoj to give beatings. An altercation took place and accused Balbir Singh @ Titu took out a sharp edged weapon and attributed in the abdomen of Immamuddin. As and when the complainant Sanjay Khan stopped the motorcycle, accused inflicted another blow at the back of Immamuddin and fled away from the spot. Injured Immamuddin rushed to Escorts Medical Centre, Faridabad. Initially, the FIR was registered under Section 324 of IPC and thereafter, on receipt of the medical opinion, the same was converted into 307 of IPC.
Inspector Dharam Singh (Retired), as PW1, has deposed that after receiving ruqqa Ex.PA, has recorded the formal FIR Ex.PB.
Constable Mahabir Singh, as PW2, has tendered his affidavit Ex.PC. He is a formal witness.
Ashok Kumar, Draftsman as PW3, has prepared the site plan Ex.PE.
HC Ram Kumar as PW4, has recorded the statement of the injured under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
SI Kehar Singh as PW5, has deposed that during interrogation
the accused made a disclosure statement Ex.PF and in
3
CRA No.1051 SB of 2000
pursuance thereof, a dagger and blood stained clothes were recovered from the accused.
SI Niranjan Lal as PW6, formal witness, who recorded the statements of eye witnesses Manoj and Ashok under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
HC Abhey Singh as PW7, has deposed that on the intervening night 9/10.5.1996, he rushed to the Escorts Medical Centre, Faridabad and in this regard entry was made in the rapat rozenamcha.
Constable Bhan Singh as PW8, was handed over a parcel containing clothes to transmit the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban on the same day.
Immamuddin, injured, as PW9, has reiterated the version given in the complaint by the complainant Sanjay Khan.
Sanjay Khan as PW10, the complainant, who has recorded the FIR. He is brother of the injured Immamuddin.
HC Hari Chand as PW11, has tendered his affidavit as Ex.PM. Manoj Kumar as PW12, has been given up by the prosecution. Dr.VR Gupta, Escorts Medical Centre, Faridabad as PW13, has conducted the medico legally examination Immamuddin vide MLR Ex.PO. He opined that the injuries caused on the person of Immamuddin with a sharp edged weapon.
Dr.Ashwani Kumar, Surgeon as PW14, has opined vide Ex.PQ/1 that injury No.1 was dangerous to life and injury no.2 was simple.
CRA No.1051 SB of 2000 4
By tendering some documents, the prosecution closed its
evidence.
judgment.
The medical evidence is not in consonance with the ocular version because as per the MLR of injured Immamuddin, it was found to be the lacerated wounds and therefore, cannot be caused by the alleged sharp edged weapon i.e. knife. It is
CRA No.1051 SB of 2000 5
further averred that no reason has been assigned to declare these injuries to be dangerous to life. It is further averred that in view of MLR Ex.PQ/1, the medical opinion rendered by Dr.Ashwani PW14 cannot be relied upon for convicting the accused-appellant as he does not come out that he probed the depth of injury No.1.
It is further averred that the prosecution version is not truthful. In the statement of PW6 SI Niranjan Lal that Manoj and Ashok, the independent witnesses, whose statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had not witnessed the occurrence. There is over writing in the statements of the said witnesses. Initially the same has been mentioned as 30.5.1995 and by doing over writing it has been mentioned as 9.5.1996, which is proved by the Investigating Officer.
It is further averred that no independent witness was cited despite the fact that the occurrence took place in a busy locality.
It is further averred that there are material contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the weapon used. As per the statement of the complainant Sanjay Khan, the weapon used by accused-appellant was Chhura (knife), whereas the recovery was allegedly effected of a dagger from the accused-appellant.
It is further averred that there is unexplained delay of 18 hours in lodging the FIR, as the occurrence took place on
6
CRA No.1051 SB of 2000
9.5.1996 at 9.30 PM and the statement of the complainant was recorded on 19.5.1996 at 4.30 PM i.e. on the next day.
It is further averred that the identity of the accused is not established.
7
CRA No.1051 SB of 2000
Hospital, Faridabad, who had conducted the medico legally examination of Immamuddin and found the following injuries and deposed as under:-
2. A clean lacerated wound on right side of back approximately 4 x 2 x 2 cm in size.
The injuries seem to be caused by a sharp edge object.”
8
CRA No.1051 SB of 2000
dangerous to life and injury no.2 was held to be simple in nature, as per the MLR. Accused appellant had a strong motive to cause the injuries to the victim, as he had been nursing a grudge against the victim-injured because he was beaten by one Manoj at the behest of the injured. Thus, he had a motive and repeatedly given knife blows to the injured on the vital part of the body. The delay is not fatal to the prosecution case, as the injured received serious injuries, which was dangerous to life and therefore, the primary concern of the complainant was to look after and to get provided the medical help to the injured and to save his life. On collective reading of the statements of the witnesses, this Court finds no material contradiction, in the statements of the witnesses. The occular version finds full corroboration with medical evidence. There is no possibility of false implication of the appellant. The punishment is inconsonance with the gravity of the offence. There is no doubt about the identity of the accused. The prosecution has fully proved his case against the accused-appellant beyond doubt.
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE
30.8.2012 gsv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC suffer from any perversity or material irregularity requiring interference by this Court.
Whether medical evidence regarding the nature and cause of injuries is consistent with the prosecution's ocular version and the recovered weapon.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bani Singh vs. State of U.P., 1996(3) RCR (Crl.) 201,Applied¶9
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Balbir Singh alias Titu
State of Haryana
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
