The Supreme Court of India Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Criminal Appeal No.
1328 of 2003
of Punjab Versus Mohinder Singh
appeal by special leave is by the State of Punjab against the judgment dated
30.10.2002 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No.613 SB
The prosecution case in brief was that on 2.7.1986 one Jagir Singh and his
uncle Pal Singh were standing in the plot of Pal singh and talking to each
other. At that time, Mohinder Singh came near them in a drunken state, and
shouted that he will teach a lesson to Pal Singh for not allowing him to tether
his cattle in the plot. He gave a gandasi blow which hit Jagir Singh on the
head. The injured Jagir Singh was taken by Pal Singh to his house and on the
next day he was admitted to S.G.T.B.
Amritsar. It is stated that on 3.7.1986, Head Constable Balwinder Singh reached
the hospital but as the doctor informed him that
Jagir Singh was not in a position to make any statement, FIR was not
on 6.7.1986, Head Constable Balwinder Singh met Pal Singh in the said hospital
and his statement was recorded and on that basis FIR was registered.
the respondent was charged with the offence under Section 307 IPC and he faced
trial. The injured Jagir Singh was examined as PW3, his uncle Pal Singh who was
the informant was examined as PW2. Balwinder Singh, Head Constable was examined
as PW4 and the Doctor was examined as PW1. The trial Court by its judgment
dated 27.10.1987 held the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him for four
years R.I. with a fine of Rupees One Thousand under Section 307 IPC. The appeal
filed by the respondent-accused was allowed by the High Court by the impugned
judgment dated 30.10.2002 primarily on the ground that the occurrence had taken
place on 2.7.1986, and the FIR was registered on 6.7.1986, after four days, and
there was no satisfactory explanation as to why Pal Singh waited for four days
for registering the FIR.
The learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the injured Jagir
Singh was hospitalised and was not in a position to make any statement to the
therefore, it could not be said that the four days' delay was fatal to the case
of the prosecution.
The High Court has considered the facts of the case in proper perspective.
incident occurred in the plot of Pal Singh on 2.7.1986 at 8 p.m. when he was
talking to his nephew Jagir Singh. According to the prosecution case, the
accused to give vent to his anger against Pal Singh attacked Pal Singh in a
drunken condition but the blow landed on Jagir Singh. Admittedly, Pal Singh and
other relatives kept Jagir Singh in the house on 2.7.1986 and took the injured
Jagir Singh to hospital on 3.7.1986 and got him admitted. Even assuming that
Jagir Singh being injured and hospitalised, was not in a position to make any
statement, there is no satisfactory explanation as to why neither Pal Singh,
who gave the information on 6.7.1986, nor the other relatives did not give the
information about the incident earlier particularly as the incident occurred in
Pal Singh's land and the attack was allegedly directed against him. The High
Court has observed that non-registering of FIR for four days and failure on the
part of Pal Singh and other relatives of Jagir Singh to give timely information
leads to an inference that FIR was recorded after due deliberations and
consultations obviously to implicate the accused.
As noted above, the incident is of the year 1986. The High Court has allowed
the appeal and acquitted the respondent in the year 2002, giving cogent
reasons.We find no reasons to interfere with the said judgment. Appeal is,
P. SATHASIVAM) NEW DELHI;
JUNE 26, 2008.