Dismissed

Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Dec 2014CRA-S/771/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal appeal against an acquittal in an assault case involving multiple accused. The High Court upheld the trial court's acquittal on the grounds of unexplained delay, inconsistencies in prosecution testimony, and doubts raised by the injuries sustained by the accused and non-accounted witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld.

Balbir Singh Vs State of Haryana and… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Appeal No.S-771-SB of 2014

¶3

Date of decision:17.12.2014

Balbir Singh

...Appellant

State of Haryana and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶10

.....

¶11

Present: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶13

Balbir Singh-appellant has filed this appeal challenging the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 6.12.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide which all the accused have been acquitted of the charges as framed against them.

¶14

It is mainly stated that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court acquitting accused-respondents No.2 to 12 of the charges is against the facts on record and well settled law, hence, is liable to be set aside. It is also stated that the learned trial Court has erred gravely by coming to the conclusion on conjectures, surmises, presumptions and suppositions.

¶15

The record of the trial Court was requisitioned.

¶16

I have heard learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Arjun

¶17

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.12.22 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

Cr. Appeal No.S-771-SB of 2014 [2]

¶19

Lakhanpal, Advocate, appearing for the appellant and have gone through the record.

¶20

From the record, I find that challan has been presented against 11 accused in FIR No.88 dated 30.10.2011 registered for the offences under Sections 148, 307, 323, 506 and 216 read with Section 149 IPC at Police Station Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa.

¶21

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 25.9.2011, medical Ruqa' was received regarding injured Balbir Singh and Mewa Singh along with MLRs. The Investigating Officer went to the hospital. The doctor handed over the medical Ruqa' regarding accused Bhoop Singh and Surjit Singh. Injured Balbir Singh was declared unfit to make a statement and Mewa Singh was reported to have been shifted to Sarvodaya Hospital, Hisar. When the Police party reached Sarvodaya Hospital, Hisar, the doctors also declared Mewa Singh unfit to make a statement. The Police party again returned to General Hospital, Sirsa and after obtaining opinion of the doctor, recorded statement of Balbir Singh, who informed them that on 25.9.2011 at 2.15 p.m. while he along with Devi Lal, Sher Singh and Mewa Singh were plucking cotton in their fields, Hari Singh, Partap Singh, Bhal Singh, Bhoop Singh, Hanum, Pritam Singh, Ram Kumar, Manjit, Surjit and Rajesh suddenly came to their field and assaulted them while they were having their meal. All the aforesaid assailants were armed with `Lathis' and they gave several injuries with the same to them on their head, legs, back and other parts of their bodies.

¶22

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.12.22 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

Cr. Appeal No.S-771-SB of 2014 [3]

¶24

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide impugned judgment dated 6.12.2013 acquitted all the accused of the charges as framed against them.

¶25

I have gone through the record specially the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I find that the findings given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, are correct and as per law. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused firstly on the ground of unexplained delay. The Court held that Balbir Singh injured in cross-examination has stated that he had driven the vehicle from the place of occurrence to General Hospital, meaning thereby that he was in a fit and conscious state at the time of his arrival in the hospital. He also stated that except for Mewa Singh, he along with Devi Lal and Sher Singh were conscious at the time of their medico-legal examination. There is no cogent explanation as to why the statements of other persons have not been recorded, who were present there. This delay along with the fact that 11 persons have been implicated in the present case creates doubt in the prosecution version regarding their false implication and concocting a false version. Further more, two of the accused, namely, Bhoop Singh and Surjit Singh have also received injuries and there is not an iota of evidence on record to explain their injuries, which further creates doubt in the prosecution version. The learned Additional Sessions Judge correctly held that genesis of the occurrence has been concealed and the place of occurrence is also disputed one. The trial Court also compared the injuries on the complainant side as well as on the accused side and

¶26

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.12.22 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

Cr. Appeal No.S-771-SB of 2014 [4]

¶28

reached at the conclusion that non-explanation of injuries creates doubt in the prosecution version. Mainly the injuries on the persons of complainant side except two or three injuries on the head are pain and bruises etc. The accused have also injuries of lacerated wound on their heads. The injuries on the persons of the accused cannot be held as selfsuffered. Otherwise also, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, has correctly reached at the conclusion that if 11 persons armed with `Lathis' would go to the house of the complainant, where they were taking the meal, they will inflict more serious injuries and will not cause such type of simple injuries.

¶29

A perusal of the record shows that the findings given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are correct and as per law, there being no merit in the present appeal, which does not require any interference from this Court and the same is upheld.

¶30

Therefore, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is

¶31

dismissed.

¶32

December 17, 2014. (Inderjit Singh) Judge hsp

¶33

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.12.22 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Faquir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Inderjit Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Deepak Kaushal Vs State of Punjab

Sukhdev Singh Dhaliwal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Tarsem Singh Vs State of Punjab

Deep Singh Vs State of Punjab