Dismissed

Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 May 2016CRM-A/634/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application by an injured victim for leave to appeal against acquittal. The Court held the trial court's decision was legally sound based on proper evidence appreciation, noting witness hostility and lack of ballistic or medical corroboration.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal against acquittal declined and the instant application dismissed.

Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

CRM-A-634-MA-2016

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-A-634-MA-2016

¶5

Date of decision: 27.05.2016

Ranjit Singh

..... Applicant

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶10

..... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

¶12

1. Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

¶15

PRESENT: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.

¶16

RAMENDRA JAIN, J.

¶17

Victim-Ranjit Singh, has filed the instant application under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file appeal against acquittal of respondents No. 2 to 14 (hereinafter referred to as 'the private respondents') vide impugned judgment dated 17.12.2015, under Sections 307, 506, 148, 149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala.

¶18

In nutshell, on 08.12.2010 on receipt of a telephonic message in

¶19

RISHU KATARIA 2016.07.06 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶20

CRM-A-634-MA-2016 -2-

¶21

Police Station City, Rajpura from A.P. Jain Hospital, Rajpura about admission of injured-Ranjit Singh having suffered gun shot injury, Inspector Amrik Singh along with other police officials reached the said hospital and came to know that due to multiple injuries, the injured had already been referred to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala. However, Munish Sharma present there made statement before Inspector Amrik Singh to the effect that he and his father Rajinderpal are running a Dhaba at Sirhind Bye-pass. After about 10 feet passage, the adjoining land belongs to respondents No. 2, 3, 7 and 12, namely, Sukhchain Singh, Bahadur Singh, Karamjit Singh and Sukhwinder Singh sons of respondent No. 5-Raghbir Singh. On demarcation, permanent poles were installed by the revenue officials, but the aforesaid respondents stole all the poles, whereupon his fatherRajinderpal got registered a case against them. The respondents also used to threaten them on telephone. In the evening of 08.12.2010, he along with his father-Rajinderpal and his friend Ranjit Singh (applicant herein) were having tea at their dhaba. In the meanwhile, the private respondents armed with deadly weapons like revolver, 12 bore gun, gandasis, dandas, sticks, kirpan etc., in furtherance of their common intention came there and raised lalkara that they would cultivate the passage adjoining to their dhaba. Thereafter, all the private respondents started firing with their respective fire arms in order to kill the complainant party. As a result thereof, the applicant received gun shot injuries on both of his thighs. In order to save themselves, the complainant party entered into the dhaba. One Amit Verma son of Hemant Verma and their servant Sunny raised alarm upon which several truck drivers gathered at the spot and on seeing them the private

¶22

RISHU KATARIA 2016.07.06 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶23

CRM-A-634-MA-2016 -3-

¶24

respondents fled away from the spot along with their respective weapons.

¶25

Upon the above statement of Munish Sharma, a case was registered. Investigation was commenced. Statements of the relevant witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. During investigation, respondents No. 8 to 14 were found innocent. Respondent No. 4-Hardeep Singh, pursuant to his disclosure statement got recovered one 32 bore revolver and one gun along with its licence. Similarly, respondent No. 5- Raghbir Singh got recovered one 32 bore revolver and one gun along with its cartridges. On completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the Area Magistrate, Rajpura only against respondents No. 2 to 7, by placing respondents No. 8 to 14 in its column No. 2 as innocent.

¶26

On commitment of the case and summoning of respondents No. 8 to 14 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as additional accused, the private respondents were charge-sheeted under Sections 307, 506, 148, 149 and 201 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. They pleaded their false implication.

¶27

The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 15 witnesses.

¶28

On appraisal of evidence, the learned trial Court did not find itself convinced with the prosecution story and resultantly, acquitted the private respondents vide impugned judgment.

¶29

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures. The ocular version of the prosecution was corroborated by medical evidence and thus, there was no scope of acquittal of the respondents.

¶30

RISHU KATARIA 2016.07.06 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶31

CRM-A-634-MA-2016 -4-

¶32

After giving our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel applicant, we find no merit in the instant application for the reasons to follow.

¶33

The star witnesses of the prosecution case are complainantMunish Sharma (PW-1) and his father PW-2-Rajinderpal Sharma. Both of them turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. Even during their lengthy cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing favourable to the prosecution could be elicited from their mouths. That apart, two other eye-witnesses namely, PW-3 Amit Verma and PW-13 Gursewak Singh @ Sunny, also turned hostile and feigned ignorance about the occurrence in their presence. They too were cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, but nothing favourable to the prosecution could be brought on record.

¶34

PW-4 Ranjit Singh-injured (applicant), has fully supported the prosecution story by testifying that in the evening of 08.12.2010, respondents No. 4 and 7 armed with revolvers, respondents No. 12 and 13 armed with double barrel guns, respondents No. 2, 3, 5, 9 and 10 armed with gandasis, respondent No. 6 armed with sword, respondent No. 8 armed with iron rod, respondent No. 11 armed with stick/soties, besides Devinder Singh, Jaspal Singh and Amarjit Singh having sticks, pursuant to criminal conspiracy and with an intention to kill them, fired shots upon them. Respondents No. 7 and 12 fired shots from their revolver and double barrel gun, respectively towards him which hit his legs and other parts of his body and as a result thereof, he fell down. Thereafter, the respondents also gave

¶35

sword blows upon him while he was lying on the ground. On raising hue

¶36

RISHU KATARIA 2016.07.06 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶37

CRM-A-634-MA-2016 -5-

¶38

and cry, the respondents fled away from the spot, while extending threats to them. The assailants had caused injuries to him at the instance of respondent No. 14-Jaswinder Singh Duggal, owner of Guru Kirpa Dhaba, situated at Sirhind-Patiala bye-pass. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that no identification parade was got conducted by the police from him during investigation of the case. The police had not even shown him any weapon of offence till date. His statement was not recorded by the police at any point of time in this case. He had disclosed about the incident for the first time in the Court and prior to it, he had not disclosed any such incident pertaining to the present case to anybody or any authority. He had identified all the accused for the first time in Court at the time of making his statement on 25.03.2015 and prior to that he had not seen or identified any of the private respondents at any place.

¶39

According to him, PW-1 Munish Kumar (complainant) had got him admitted in the hospital, but as per his MLR he was admitted by his brother Jasbir Singh. He further admitted that he did not disclose the manner in which he had received the alleged injuries and caused by whom, either at A.P.Jain Hospital at Rajpura or at Rajindera Hospital, Patiala. Even he had not disclosed to the police about the unidentified persons, who had attacked upon him. One Amit Kumar, known to him was also present, when he was attacked by the assailants. However, the aforesaid Amit Kumar, as PW-3 has not corroborated his testimony. PW-4 further admitted that during investigation the private respondents were found innocent. He did not disclose the names, parentage and features/description of any of the private respondents to the police during investigation of the case. Even he

¶40

RISHU KATARIA 2016.07.06 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶41

CRM-A-634-MA-2016 -6-

¶42

does not know as to who were the witnesses cited by the police in this case. He had given his statement as tutored by his counsel. Meaning thereby, none of the private respondents was identified by the applicant at the spot, while causing him injury.

¶43

According to the applicant, 13 persons armed with deadly weapons like revolver, 12 bore gun, gandasis, dandas, sticks, kirpan etc. had caused injuries to him on various parts of his body. However, his MLR Ex. PW-12/A belies his above version, because only two bullet injuries were found on his left thigh. No injury allegedly caused by gandasi, sword, sticks/dandas etc. were found on his person. Admittedly, the private respondents had no enmity with the applicant. The dispute if any, was in between the private respondents and complainant-Manish Sharma and his father-Rajinderpal Sharma qua the passage adjoining to their dhaba, but no injury was caused by the private respondents to them. As such no motive can be attributed to the private respondents in causing injuries to the applicant-Ranjit Singh.

¶44

There is no evidence on the record that which respondent had fired shot from his revolver or gun upon the applicant. Even there is no opinion of any ballistic expert or armourer that which of the weapon was used to cause bullet injuries to the applicant. There is also no report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. As such the prosecution has not been able to prove that the weapons allegedly recovered from the private respondents were in working condition or whether any gun shot was fired from the same. Resultantly, it is not possible to connect the private respondents with the alleged incident. More so, the sanction for prosecution was also declined in

¶45

RISHU KATARIA 2016.07.06 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶46

CRM-A-634-MA-2016 -7-

¶47

respect of respondents No. 4 and 5 and as such, they could not have been prosecuted, more particularly, when PW-7 ASI Avtar Singh, has testified that he had not obtained any opinion with regard to working condition of the arms/ammunition from any Ballistic Expert or armourer.

¶48

In view of discussion above, the impugned judgment is patently legal, being based on proper appreciation of evidence and thus does not call for any interference by us.

¶49

The instant application, being completely devoid of any merit is

¶50

dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined.

¶51

( T.P.S. MANN ) ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶52

May 27, 2016

¶53

rishu

¶54

RISHU KATARIA 2016.07.06 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab 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

Ankil Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Surinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Dayal Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

M.L. Kaushik Vs Beena Aggarwal & Anr.

Vivek Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs Nupur Aggarwal etc.