Man Bahadur Vs State of Pb. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Man Bahadur Vs State of Pb. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal accepted; impugned judgment of the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dated 02.03.2005 set aside; appellant Man Bahadur acquitted of all charges framed against him.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant Man Bahadur, along with co-accused Jang Bahadur, killed the deceased Parvesh Kumar by inflicting injuries with an iron pipe, the prosecution resting mainly on the testimonies of PW-6 Jaspal Singh and PW-13 Satnam Singh. +1 more

Court's answer

The factum of homicidal death of Parvesh Kumar is duly established; PW-1 Dr. U.S.Sooch opined that the cause of death was head injury, sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and nothing substantial was elicited in his cross-examination.

Ratio / Principle

The eye-witness accounts are mutually inconsistent: PW-6 Jaspal Singh attributed the holding of the legs to the appellant and the blows to Jang Bahadur, while PW-13 Satnam Singh attributed the roles vice versa; while such inconsistency ipso facto may not suffice to doubt the prosecution case, other material aspects render it doubtful.

Key takeaways

The alleged continuation of the beating for about 15-20 minutes after PW-13 first noticed the occurrence is not in tune with the medical evidence, as only 4 injuries were found on the dead body which would have taken barely 3-4 minutes to inflict; further, the witnesses made no effort to catch the accused, the accounts conflict on whether the appellant was caught at the spot (he was in fact arrested on 10.07.2000), and the Muneem (Manager) informed first was not examined.ratio¶83
There was gross delay of more than 12 hours in lodging the FIR; even the proprietor Jaspal Singh (PW-6), being a fairly intelligent and worldly-wise person running a service station, did not inform the police immediately, which casts a doubt on the veracity of his version.ratio¶16
While delay ipso facto would not demolish the case of prosecution, when there are other doubtful circumstances or inconsistencies in the prosecution case, it becomes unsafe to rely upon the prosecution version, as the delay could have been used to concoct a version.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (CRA-D-348-DB-2005 O&M, decided 05.04.2025; Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill & Jasjit Singh Bedi, JJ.) - Criminal appeal against judgment dated 02.03.2005 of the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, convicting Man Bahadur under Section 302/34 IPC for the murder of Parvesh Kumar (FIR No.152 dated 04.07.2000, P.S. Focal Point, Ludhiana; iron-pipe assault at Preet Service Station) and sentencing him to life imprisonment with Rs.10,000/- fine. The Court found: (i) homicidal death by head injury medically established, with only four post-mortem injuries; (ii) eye-witnesses PW-6 Jaspal Singh and PW-13 Satnam Singh gave mutually reversed accounts of who held the deceased and who inflicted the blows, and contradicted each other on apprehension of the accused (actual arrest on 10.07.2000, a week after the occurrence); (iii) the Muneem (Manager), informed first of the incident, was not examined; (iv) gross delay of over 12 hours in lodging the FIR, unexplained by the proprietor; and (v) the alleged 15-20 minute continuance of the beating irreconcilable with the medical evidence. Invoking the caution against delayed FIRs drawn from Harilal etc. v. State of Madhra Pardesh, AIR 2023 SC 4239, the Court held it unsafe to rely on the prosecution version, found the conviction unjustified, allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and acquitted the appellant of all charges.

CRA-D-348-DB-2005 ( O&M)

( 1 )

IN THE HI G H COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGA R H

CRA-D-348-DB-2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.04.2025

Man Baha d ur … Appellant

Versus

State of Pu n jab ... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present: Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate as A micus Curiae, for the appellant. Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, A A G, Punjab.

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.

Man Baha d ur assails judgment dated 02.0 3 .2005 passed by learned Sessi o ns Judge, Lud h iana, wherein the trial Court w hile holding him guilty of having committed offence under Section 302 rea d with Section 34 IPC, senten c ed him to un d ergo imprisonment for life a n d imposed a fine amounting to Rs.10,000/ - .

The matter arises out of FIR No.152 dat e d 04.07.2000 registered at Pol i ce Station Fo c al Point, Ludhiana, under Sect i on 302/34 IPC at the instance of Jaspal Sing h . The translated gist of Jaspal Singh’s statement (Ex.PD) on t he basis of wh i ch FIR (Ex.PD/2) was lodged r e ads as under:

“I a m resident of Ludhiana and have bu i lt a service station under the nam e & style of ‘Preet Service Station’ in Hir a Nagar, Ludhiana. I had emplo y ed Parv e sh Kumar for the last 3 years f or service of vehicles. I had a l so empl o yed two other employees name l y Man Bahadur and Jang Baha d ur abou t 2 months back, who were someh o w having some kind of jealousy w ith

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-348-DB-2005 ( O&M)

( 2 )

Parv e sh Kumar and used to quarrel w ith him frequently as they felt t h at Parv e sh Kumar used to indulge in b a ck-biting against them. Last ni g ht (03.0 7 .2000) at about 11.30 PM, when I was present in my house, t h en Satn a m Singh, driver of JMT Compa n y, informed me telephonically t h at Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur were quarrelling with Parvesh Kumar. I rushe d to the service station where I met Satnam Singh at the gate a nd there a fter we went inside and saw that Parvesh Kumar was lying on a re h ri and had been caught hold by Man Baha d ur from his legs while Jang Baha d ur was g iving blows with iron pipe on h i s face and forehead. The said t w o perso n s upon noticing us ran away fro m the spot after leaving the iron p i pe there. Parvesh Kumar was smeared in b lood and had expired. I left Satn a m Sing h near the dead body and went to c all acquaintances of Parvesh Ku m ar from the village. I alongwith Anil Ku m ar, a co-villager of Parvesh Ku m ar, was p roceeding to the police station to lodge report when you met me a nd recor d ed my statement. I have heard t h e statement and the same is corr e ct. Action be taken. Man Bahadur and Ja n g Bahadur in connivance with e a ch other have murdered Parvesh Kumar.”

The afores a id statement was recorded on 0 4 .07.2000 at 12.30 PM (afterno o n) by Inspect o r Paramjit Singh. The same w as sent to the Police Station f or registration of FIR. Special reports were sent to the Illaqa Magistrate a nd also to oth e r senior police officers. Therea f ter, Inspector Paramjit Singh w e nt to the place of occurrence and conducte d inquest proceedings. The d e ad body was got photographed. Blood staine d iron pipe recovered from the s p ot as well as b lood stained soil were taken i n to possession and were separat e ly sealed. Post-mortem examination was g o t conducted on the dead body of Parvesh K u mar. Accused Man Bahadur was arrested on 10.07.2000. C o- accused Ja n g Bahadur, however, could n o t be arrested and was declare d a proclaimed offender.

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-348-DB-2005 ( O&M)

( 3 )

Upon conc l usion of investigation, challan w as presented against accused M an Bahadur o n 16.10.2000 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistr a te, Ludhiana, w ho committed the case to the C ourt of Sessions vide order da t ed 13.11.2000 where charges were framed a gainst accused Man Bahadur f or offence pu n ishable under Section 302/34 IPC on 30.11.2000 to which he pleaded no t guilty and claimed trial.

The prosec u tion in order to establish its c a se examined as many as 13 P W s. The gist of t heir testimonies is being briefl y referred to herein under:-

PW-1 Dr. U.S.Sooch, Medical Officer, C ivil Hospital, Ludhiana, who h ad co n ducted post-mortem examinati o n on the dead body of Parv e sh Ku m ar on 04.07.2000, proved t h e post-mortem report as Ex.PA, wh e rein he described the injuries f o und on the dead body. He opi n ed tha t the cause of death was head in j ury, which was sufficient to ca u se de a th in ordinary course of nature.

PW-2 HC Kuldeep Singh, who is a form a l witness, tendered into evide n ce his affidavit Ex.PW-2/A, wherein h e deposed that he was posted as A/ M HC, P.S.Focal Point, Ludhian a and that on 04.07.2000, Inspec t or Par a mjit Singh had deposited wi t h him case property i.e. parc e ls co n taining iron pipe, blood stai n ed soil and clothes as well as ric k shaw rehri. He further depo s ed that on 24.07.2000, the c a se pro p erty except rickshaw rehri was handed over to Constable Ja n ak Raj for the purpose of getting a do c ket issued from the office of S S P, Lu d hiana, which was accordingly issued on the same day and t he cas e property was deposited back w ith him. He further deposed t h at on 2 8.07.2000, the case property w a s handed over to Constable Ja n ak Raj for depositing the same in t h e office of Chemical Examiner, Pat i ala, but could not be deposite d on account of certain objecti o ns an d was deposited back in the malkhana and it was subsequently on 04. 0 8.2000 that the case propert y was again sent to the office of Ch e mical Examiner, Patiala, whic h was deposited on the same d ay

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-348-DB-2005 ( O&M)

( 4 )

an d that as long as the case prope r ty remained in his possession, t he sa m e was not tampered with.

PW-3 HC Tarsem Singh, who is a form a l witness, tendered into evide n ce his affidavit Ex.PW-3/A, wherein h e deposed that on 04.07.2000, he wa s posted as MHC, P.S.Focal P oint, Ludhiana and that on t he dir e ctions of ASI Avtar Singh, h e prepared the special reports a nd dir e cted HC Satwinder Singh to d e liver the same to the learned C J M an d other senior officers and that HC Satwinder Singh accordin g ly got the needful done.

PW-4 HC Satwinder Singh, who is a for m al witness, tendered into evide n ce his affidavit Ex.PW-4/A, wherein h e deposed that on 04.07.2000, he ha d delivered the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate and to ot h er sen i or officers.

PW-5 HC Milkha Singh stated that on 0 4 .07.2000, he was posted at Pol i ce Po s t Moti Nagar, under Police Stat i on Focal Point, Ludhiana and w as ass o ciated with Inspector Para m jit Singh for the purpose of inv e stigation of the present case. H e stated that the blood stained i r on pip e and blood stained soil wer e recovered from the spot in h is pre s ence and that he had signed o n the recovery memos. He furt h er sta t ed that Inspector Paramjit Sin g h had entrusted the dead body of Par v esh Kumar to him for getti n g the post-mortem examination co n ducted and that he accordingly g ot the needful done.

PW-6 Jas p al Singh at whose instance the FIR was lodged, stated in t u ne wit h his statement (Ex.PD), wh i ch he had got recorded bef o re Ins p ector Paramjit Singh on 04.07. 2 000.

PW-7 Co n stable Janak Raj, who is a for m al witness, tendered into evide n ce his affidavit Ex.PW-7/A, wherein he deposed that on 24.07.20 0 0, M H C Kuldeep Singh had handed over to him the case property f or get t ing a docket issued from the o f fice of the SSP, Ludhiana, wh i ch he a ccordingly got issued and the r eafter deposited the case prope r ty wit h MHC Kuldeep Singh on the same day. He further deposed t h at

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-348-DB-2005 ( O&M)

( 5 )

on 2 8.07.2000, MHC Kuldeep Sin g h had handed over to him the c a se pro p erty for depositing the same i n the office of Chemical Examiner, Pat i ala, but on account of some o bjections, the same could not be de p osited and on return, he depos i ted the same with MHC Kuld e ep Sin g h. He further deposed that on 04.08.2000, MHC Kuldeep Si n gh ha d again handed over to him th e case property for depositing t he sa m e in the office of Chemic a l Examiner, Patiala, which he acc o rdingly deposited on the same day and that as long as the parc e ls re m ained in his possession, the sa m e were not tampered with.

PW-8 Sh a kti Kumar stated that he had taken the photographs Ex.P1 & Ex. P 2 of the dead body and prove d the negatives thereof as Ex.P3 & Ex. P 4.

PW-9 Ha r minder Singh, draftsman, state d that he had prepared the sca l ed site plan of the place of occurrenc e and proved the same as Ex.P W - 9/ A .

PW-10 Co n stable Gurdeep Singh, who i s a formal witness, tendered i n to evi d ence his affidavit Ex.PW-10 / A, wherein he deposed that on 04. 0 7.2000, Inspector Paramjit Singh had handed over the statem e nt of J aspal Singh to him and sent hi m to the Police Station for getting the FIR registered and that he acco r dingly got the needful done.

PW-11 Ins p ector Paramjit Singh, who is the Investigating Officer of t he pre s ent case, stated in detail w ith regard to the investigation co n ducted in the matter. He p r oved various documents/me m os pre p ared during the course of inves t igation.

PW-12 A n il Kumar stated that he knew Parvesh Kumar (deceased), w ho bel o nged to his village and th a t on 04.07.2000 Jaspal Sin g h, em p loyer of Parvesh Kumar, cam e to his office and informed h i m tha t Parvesh Kumar had been mu r dered by Man Bahadur and J a ng Ba h adur and thereafter he accom p anied Jaspal Singh to his serv i ce sta t ion where the dead body of Pa r vesh Kumar was lying. He sta t ed tha t after leaving Satnam Singh ne a r the dead body, he (Anil Kum a r)

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-348-DB-2005 ( O&M)

( 6 )

alo n gwith Jaspal Singh proceeded t o lodge the report with the pol i ce an d that the police party met th e m on the way and recorded t he sta t ement of Jaspal Singh. He f u rther stated that he identified t he de a d body and his statement was re c orded by the police.

PW-13 Sat n am Singh stated that he was employed as a driver on a tr u ck bel o nging to JMT Transport Co m pany and that the trucks of t he co m pany used to be parked at the service station of the complain a nt i.e. Preet Service Station. He stat e d that Parvesh Kumar (decease d ), Ma n Bahadur and Jang Bahadur u sed to work at the service station an d that while Parvesh Kumar was a faithful servant of Jaspal Sin g h, acc u sed Man Bahadur and Jang B ahadur were not faithful pers o ns an d used to steal fuel from vehi c les in respect of which Parv e sh Ku m ar used to complain against t hem to Jaspal Singh, propriet o r, lea d ing to frequent quarrels betw e en the deceased Parvesh Ku m ar an d the accused Man Bahadur an d Jang Bahadur. He further sta t ed tha t the accused had also threatene d to kill Parvesh Kumar in case he did not desist from making com p laints against them. He furt h er sta t ed that on 03.07.2000, he wen t inside the service station to p a rk his truck at about 10.30 PM a n d instructed Parvesh Kumar to loo k after his truck and went to slee p upstairs. At about 11.30 PM, he he a rd cries of Parvesh Kumar an d he saw that while Jang Baha d ur wa s holding the legs of Parvesh Kumar, Man Bahadur, who w as car r ying an iron pipe, was giving b lows with the same. He woke up the Muneem (Manager) and inform e d him that Jang Bahadur and M an Ba h adur were beating Parvesh Kumar and also telephonica l ly inf o rmed Jaspal Singh, proprieto r of Preet Service Station, who ass u red him that he would be rea c hing there in 15/20 minutes. H e sta t ed that he and Muneem (Man a ger) peeped inside from the g a te an d saw that Man Bahadur was g iving beatings with iron pipe to Par v esh Kumar while Jang Bahadu r was holding the legs. He furt h er sta t ed that after 15/20 minutes, Ja s pal Singh came there and shor t ly the r eafter even the police reached t here. He stated that when Jas p al Sin g h came there and opened the gate, they found Parvesh Ku m ar

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-348-DB-2005 ( O&M)

( 7 )

lyi n g on a rehri in an injured c o ndition. He further stated t h at acc u sed Man Bahadur, who was in an inebriated condition, could n ot run away and was caught by Jasp a l Singh, chowkidar and by the m , wh e reas accused Jang Bahadur ran away after scaling the wall.

Upon clos u re of the prosecution evidenc e , statement of the accused M an Bahadur w a s recorded in terms of Section 3 13 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied t he entire case o f prosecution and pleaded fals e implication. He raised a plea t h at he has bee n falsely implicated and in fac t Parvesh Kumar (deceased), w ho was having illicit relations with the wife o f Jaspal Singh, had been killed by m

Jaspal Sin g h and that Jaspal Singh while u sing his influence implicated h i falsely. Th e accused, however, did not lea d any evidence in his defence.

The learne d trial Court, upon marshallin g the evidence brought on reco r d, held that th e charges framed against the ac c used for offence punishable un d er Section 30 2 read with Section 34 IPC st o od duly proved and accordin g ly sentenced h im as mentioned above.

Learned counsel for the appellant, while a ssailing the impugned judgme n t, submitted t h at he has falsely been implicat e d in the present case and that fa l se implication would be evident from the fac t that the statements of the alle g ed eye-witnes s es are inconsistent on material aspects of the case, which clea r ly show that t h ey had never witnessed the alle g ed murder. It has been submit t ed that Satna m Singh, who is an eye-witness, has been introduced subsequen t ly and that w hile Satnam Singh stated that accused Man Bahadur had b e en caught at t h e spot, the case of prosecution is that Man Bahadur was arres t ed much later i.e. on 10.07.2000. It has been submitted that the conduct of t he eye-witnes s es namely PW-6 Jaspal Singh, P W-13 Satnam Singh and Mune e m

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-348-DB-2005 ( O&M)

( 8 )

(Manager) is rather unnatural inasmuch a s despite witnessing the accu s ed inflicting i n juries to the deceased, they did n ot choose to intervene althoug h it is not the c ase that the accused were armed with any deadly or sharp-ed g ed weapon. It has further been submitted t h at although only 4 injuries w e re found on t h e person of the deceased, which would not have taken more tha n 5 minutes, b u t as per the evidence led b y the prosecution, the beati n gs continued f or more than 20 minutes inas m uch as when Satnam Singh he a rd the cries o f Parvesh Kumar at about 11.3 0 PM and saw that he was being inflicted in j uries, he firstly woke up the M uneem (Manager) and therea ft er also informed Jaspal Singh (complainant) t e lephonically who came there a ft er about 15/2 0 minutes and it was thereafter t h ey entered into the premises a ft er opening th e door and saw that the accus e d were still present there giving beatings to Parvesh Kumar (deceased). I t has further been submitted t h at Muneem ( M anager), who had been infor m ed by Satnam Singh in the first instance so m ehow has not been examined a nd that under these circumstanc e s, the colle c tive effect of aforesaid infirmities would entitle t he accused/ap p ellant to be acquitted.

Opposing t h e appeal, learned State counse l submitted that it is a case wh e re the allegati o ns stand duly established fro m the consistent testimonies of t he eye-witnes s es and that minor inconsistencies or discrepancies cannot lead to an inference that the accused has been fal s ely implicated. It has, thus, b e en submitted t h at the impugned judgment doe s not call for any interference.

We have considered rival submissions ad d ressed before this Court and w i th the assistance of learned counsel have also p erused the record of the case.

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-348-DB-2005 ( O&M)

( 9 )

Since the a llegations are to the effect th a t Parvesh Kumar (deceased) h ad been done t o death by inflicting injuries w ith an iron pipe, it is apposite to first of all r efer to the medical evidence i n this regard. The prosecution h as examined P W-1 Dr. U.S.Sooch, Medical O fficer, Civil Hospital, Ludhia n a, who had c o nducted post-mortem examina t ion on the dead body of Parv e sh Kumar on 0 4.07.2000. PW-1 Dr. U.S.So o ch proved the post-mortem rep o rt as Ex.PA, w herein he described the injurie s found on the dead body as und e r:

“1. Incised wound 3” x ½” x bone deep laced obliquely on the left forehead. Unde r neath bone was fractured and depr e ssed. Rememrane were cut and brain matte r was lacerated and were coming o ut of the wound. Clotted blood w as prese n t. Left orbit was fractured and eye b a ll was cut.

Incised wound 1.1/4” x ½” x bone deep h orizontal on the left maxillary area a nd the u n derneath bone was fractured with clo t ted blood.

Incised wound 1” x ½” through and throug h the right lower lip.

Crus h amputation of the left pinna partiall y with clotted blood.”

PW-1 furth e r stated that as per his opinion t he cause of death was head inju r y, which was sufficient to cause death in ord i nary course of nature. PW-1 D r. U.S.Sooch was briefly cross-examined on b ehalf of the accused, but nothing substantial could be elicited during the co u rse of his cross-examination so as to either do u bt his veracity or his opinion. A s such, the factum of death being a homicida l death is duly established.

The materi a l question would be as to wh e ther the appellant (Man Bahad u r) alongwith J ang Bahadur had killed the dec e ased by inflicting injuries with an iron pipe. The prosecution mainly ban k s upon the testimonies of P W -6 Jaspal Sin g h and PW-13 Satnam Sing h . While PW-6 Jaspal Singh (complaina n t) alleges that it was appellan t Man Bahadur, who had held t he

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-348-DB-2005 ( O&M)

( 10 )

deceased fr om his legs and that co-acc u sed Jang Bahadur had inflic t ed injuries, th e other eye-witness namely PW-13 Satnam Singh while describing the occurre n ce attributed the role vice vers a inasmuch as he stated that it w as Jang Baha d ur, who had held the deceased from his legs and it was appell a nt (Man Baha d ur), who had inflicted injuries w ith iron pipe. While the effect of the aforesa i d inconsistency ipso facto may not be sufficient to doubt the c a se of prosecut i on, but there are certain other material aspects, which do ren d er the case of p rosecution doubtful.

It is pertin e nt to notice that while PW-13 Satnam Singh stated that accu s ed Man Baha d ur, who was in an inebriated c ondition, was caught at the s p ot itself, but P W-6 Jaspal Singh stated that b o th the accused had run away. A s per the I n vestigating Officer i.e. P W -11 Inspector Paramjit Sin g h, accused/ap p ellant Man Bahadur was, h o wever, arrested on 10.07.20 0 0, whereas th e occurrence had taken place o n 04.07.2000. Further, even t he m

Muneem ( M anager), who had been infor m ed first of all by PW-13 Satn a Singh abou t the incident, has not been exa m ined by the prosecution.

The condu c t of the witnesses in the instant case also leaves much to be explained i n asmuch as while it was at abo u t 11.30 PM on 03.07.2000 that t he occurrence was noticed by PW-13 Satn a m Singh, who thereafter firs t ly informed t h e Muneem (Manager) and t h en telephonically informed t he proprietor o f the service station namely Jaspal Singh (PW-6) and it w as thereafter w hen Jaspal Singh came at the s pot that they opened the door a nd went insid e where the occurrence was tak i ng place, but no effort was m a de by them t o catch the accused. Further, in case, two persons had ov e r-

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-348-DB-2005 ( O&M)

( 11 )

powered th e deceased, then it would have b een a matter of barely 3-4 minu t es during whi c h 4 injuries would have been i n flicted to him, but the story of t he prosecutio n is that the beatings were still g o ing on when Jaspal Singh reac h ed at the spot after about 15-20 minutes wh i ch is rather not in tune with t he medical ev i dence as only 4 injuries were fo u nd on the dead body.

Adding sal t to spice is the fact that there is gross delay of more than 12 ho u rs in lodging t he FIR. While in the case of a naïve rustic villager, it could be said that h e may have been hesitant to app r oach the police, but in the pres e nt case, Satn a m Singh, who had first witnessed the incident, had called t he proprietor o f the Preet Service Station i.e. J aspal Singh (PW-6), but even t he proprietor d id not choose to inform the pol i ce immediately. A person, wh o is running a s e rvice station, would be fairly i n telligent and worldly-wise and as such, the d elay on his part in informin g the police would cast a do u bt regarding v eracity of his version. He has t r ied to explain the delay by stating that he inf o rmed one Anil Kumar, who w a s related to the deceased and t h at he brought A nil Kumar there in the mornin g and it was thereafter that the FIR was lodge d by him (Jaspal Singh). Whe n ever there is delay in lodging t he FIR, the C o urts would tread cautiously. A l though delay ipso facto would n ot demolish t he case of prosecution, but when there are other doubt f ul circumstan c es or inconsistencies in the case of prosecution, it certai n ly becomes u n safe to rely upon the prose c ution version as there could be possibility o f delay having been used to co n coct a version. In Harilal etc. V s. State of M adhra Pardesh, AIR 2023 (S C ) 4239 , Hon’ble Supreme Co u rt sounded a n ote of caution in case of delaye d FIR while observing as under:

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-348-DB-2005 ( O&M)

( 12 )

“19. Although there might not have b een a specific question put to P W -9 as regards the delay in lodgin g the FIR but the fact that it wa s a delayed FIR cannot be ignored. When an FIR is delayed, in abse n ce of proper explanation, the cou r ts must be on guard and test t he evidence meticulously to rule ou t possibility of embellishments in t he prosecution story, inasmuch as delay gives opportunity f or deliberation and guess work. M o re so, in a case where probability of no one witnessing the incident is high, such as in a case of ni g ht occurrence in an open place or a p ublic street.”

In the pres e nt case, PW-13 Satnam Singh has stated in sharp contradiction with the c ase of prosecution as regard s apprehension of accused M an Bahadur in a smuch as while PW-13 Satna m Singh stated that Man Baha d ur was caught at the spot, the complainant (P W -6 Jaspal Singh) stated that b o th the accuse d had run away. As per the Inve s tigating Officer, it was after ab o ut a week i.e. on 10.07.2000 that the accuse d Man Bahadur was arrested. T he manner of occurrence as stated by PW-6 Jaspal Singh and PW-13 Satn a m Singh is a l so rather inconsistent inasmu c h as while PW-6 Jaspal Singh (complaina n t) stated that it was appellant - Man Bahadur, who had held t he deceased f r om his legs and co-accused J a ng Bahadur had inflicted injur i es with iron pipe, PW-13 Satnam Singh w hile describing the occurre n ce attributed t h e role vice versa that it was Jang Bahadur, who had held t he deceased fr o m his legs and it was appellant (Man Bahadur), who had inflic t ed injuries wit h iron pipe. Still further, we fi n d that PW-13 Satnam Singh in h is examinatio n -in-chief stated that the police had also come shortly after Jas p al Singh reac h ed at the spot, which again le a ves it unexplained as to why t he FIR was n o t lodged immediately. The rel e vant extract from the statement of PW-13 Sat n am Singh is reproduced herein u nder:

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-348-DB-2005 ( O&M)

( 13 )

“… … ………I and Muneem peeped th r ough the gate and we saw that M an Baha d ur was giving beatings with iron pipe and Jang Bahadur was hold i ng the legs. Then after 15-20 minutes Jas p al Singh came there. He got the g a te open e d. After sometime, the police als o came there. When Jaspal Singh g ot the g a te opened we found Parvesh Ku m ar lying on the rehri . He was in an injur e d condition. Accused Man Bah a dur was in a drunken condition. H e coul d not run away. His co-accused Ja n g Bahadur jumped over the wall a nd ran a way. Accused was caught hol d by Jaspal Singh, Chowkidar a nd ourse l ves……..”

Viewed in light of delay in lodging o f FIR, the aforesaid discrep a nt testimonies and the inconsistent account re g arding arrest of accused/appell a nt assume sig n ificance and it is certainly unsafe to rely upon the prosecution version.

The afores a id facts collectively would not j ustify conviction of the appell a nt as recorde d by the trial Court and the sa m e deserves to be set aside. T he appeal, as s uch, is accepted and the imp u gned judgment is set aside. T he appellant is ordered to be acquitted of all the charges framed against him.

A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necess a ry compliance.

(GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE

05.04.2025 Vimal Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document