Allowed

Baldev Singh etc. v. State of Pb.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Apr 2013CRA-S/1504/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of two appellants. The judge, noting established police misconduct, bias by the investigating officer, delay in FIR registration, and the absence of injuries, held that persisting with the proceedings would violate principles of justice.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence of the appellants were set aside.

Baldev Singh etc. Vs State of Pb. — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Criminal Appeal No.1504-SB of 2004 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Cr.A.No.1504-SB of 2004 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 26.4.2013

¶4

Baldev Singh and another

APPELLANTS

VERSUS

State of Punjab

RESPONDENT

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present:Shri S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the appellants.

¶11

Shri Premjit S.Hundal, A.A.G. Punjab.

¶12

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶13

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.7.2004 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide which appellant Baldev Singh was convicted under Section 450 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RI for 3-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 9 months. He was further convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.700/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 9 months. Appellant Mukhtiar Singh was convicted under Section 450/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RI for 3-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further

¶14

Criminal Appeal No.1504-SB of 2004 -2-

¶15

undergo RI for 9 months. He was further convicted under Section 307/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.700/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 9 months.

¶16

The occurrence is said to have taken place on 5.10.2000 in which it was alleged that all the accused persons namely Pavittar Singh, Baldev Singh and Mukhtiar Singh along with three unknown persons entered the house of complainant, Sher Singh fully armed and Baldev Singh fired shots from his gun towards the complainant and he while making an attempt to escape, bolted himself in a room. He immediately raised an alarm which attracted other persons to the spot whereupon the accused are said to have abandoned the house of the complainant. The reason for the incident is said to be a previous enmity where the complainant was to depose against the accused persons in another matter. The F.I.R. in this case was registered on 11.10.2000 after a delay of six days and the explanation for the delay given by the complainant is that he moved the office of the D.S.P. and other senior officers who marked an enquiry to ASI/SHO namely Harpal Singh.

¶17

The facts of the case would reveal that it is a case where no injury was inflicted upon anyone.

¶18

The Investigating Officer investigated the matter and submitted a challan against the accused but at the same time, there is material on record that the incident was enquired into by an officer of the rank of S.P., who recommended cancellation of the F.I.R.

¶19

The appellants throughout the proceedings in defence had referred to political animosity and the conduct of SHO/ASI Harpal Singh (PW-6) who at the behest of other senior officers of the police had implicated the appellants. Even the F.I.R. was registered on the direction of the D.S.P.

¶20

The learned trial Court concluded that the appellants had committed

¶21

Criminal Appeal No.1504-SB of 2004 -3-

¶22

the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above which it is the cause of grievance in the present appeal.

¶23

Pavittar Singh one of the appellants is said to have died during trial and therefore, the proceedings qua him abated. The appeal has been filed on behalf of the remaining two accused persons.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants contends with reference to the conviction recorded and particularly the statement of the Investigating Officer itself that there was animosity and abuse of the process of law by the Investigating Officer which stands established by various orders passed by different authorities as also this Court. He has also strenuously contended that the D.S.P. recommended the cancellation of the F.I.R. and also recommended that a case be registered against the Investigating Officer. In fact, the High Court itself gave directions for registration of a case against the Investigating Officer for registering the instant F.I.R. as a measure of abuse of the authority by the S.H.O. On further directions of this Court in separate proceedings, the said Investigating Officer was transferred out of his place of posting where he had committed this misconduct.

¶25

If the cross-examination of this officer namely ASI Harpal Singh PW-6 is seen, then he has admitted to each and every aspect of the matter narrated above. This would substantially indicate that the Investigating Officer was completely biased in his approach right since the inception of the case.

¶26

If the conduct of the Investigating Officer was doubtful in fairness, then I am of the opinion that what to talk of sustaining a conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants, even persisting with the proceedings pursuant to the F.I.R. would be a negation of the settled principles of justice and fair play.

¶27

The delay in loading the F.I.R. in itself is an indicator of the falsehood propounded by the complainant. Even though the delay singularly should not ipso facto be accepted to be a cause of fatality to the prosecution case,

¶28

Criminal Appeal No.1504-SB of 2004 -4-

¶29

but if the facts of the case are seen where no injury was caused to the complainant and his conduct in approaching other senior officers except the one who was relevant i.e. the S.H.O. concerned, would only suggest that the entire proceedings have been fabricated. The impression is strengthened further when the defence of the appellant is evaluated in terms of the statement of the Investigating Officer namely ASI Harpal Singh PW-6.

¶30

Having regard to the fact in their totality, I have a little hesitation in accepting the appeal and setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the appellants is set aside.

¶31

April 26, 2013 GD

¶32

(MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE

¶33

WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO

Baldev Singh etc. v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldev Singh etc. v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. Vs Fertile Agro Chem Ltd. & Ors.

Rajesh Nanda Vs State of Haryana

Davinder Kaur @ Davinder Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Seema Parshad Vs Chanchal Dadwal and Another

Vikrant Kumar @ Vicky Vs State of Punjab

Rohit Kapila Vs State of Punjab