High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
The State of Punjab v. Jang Singh & Anr - CRA-D-56-DBA-1994  RD-P&H 1794 (17 March 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 56 DBA of 1994
The State of Punjab Appellant
Jang Singh and another Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.GAREWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Mr. S.S.Randhawa, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for the appellant.
Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate, for
The State of Punjab has filed this appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, dated August 3, 1993 whereby Jang Singh and Gurmail Singh were acquitted after trial at which Jang Singh had been charged of murdering his servant Inder Asan by shooting him with his partner Gurmail Singh's .12 bore gun on August 16, 1990.
The occurrence had taken place at Jand Manghouli where Jang Singh and Gurmail Singh had a liquor vend. According to the prosecution, the deceased Inder Asan was their servant (karinda). Jang Singh-respondent No.1 was unhappy with the deceased on account of dilution of the liquor sold at the vend which had led to lowering of the shop's reputation and fall Crl. Appeal No. 56 DBA of 1994 
in the sales. On August 16, 1990 at 10.30 P.M. Jang Singh was seen quarreling with the deceased at the above liquor vend when HC Sajjan Singh (PW-3) and C. Bhagat Singh (PW-4), of Police Station Ghanaur, happened to pass that way on a routine patrol. HC Sajjan Singh and C.Bhagat Singh overheard the quarrel between Jang Singh and the deceased, Jang Singh was heard accusing the deceased that he had mixed water in the liquor sold at the vend. The deceased was heard replying that this had to be done to meet his personal expenses. On hearing this Jang Singh got enraged, he went inside the vend and picked up his partner Gurmail Singh's .12 bore gun and fired a single shot hitting the deceased on his right eye. He then threw the gun in the vend and ran away from the spot.
The aforesaid two witnesses saw the occurrence in the electric light and tried to chase Jang Singh, but he managed to escape under cover of darkness. Inder Asan died at the spot. The matter was reported to the police.
The case was registered on the basis of the report sent by HC Sajjan Singh at 1.05 AM (0105 hours) on August 17, 1990. FIR was registered at 3.30 A.M. The special report was delivered at 7 A.M. The Investigating Officer reached the spot, conducted inquest proceedings and then sent the dead body for post mortem which was carried out at 11 A.M.
on August 18, 1990, by Dr. I.C.Taneja (PW-1), and the following injuries were found on the person of the deceased:- "A lacerated wound 12 cm x 8 cm on the right eye ball including forehead, right chin with inverted margins, with no mark of tatooing around the wound and the right eye ball was badly lacerated liquified material, was present in the socket of right eye-ball with fracture of right frontal bone. Right Crl. Appeal No. 56 DBA of 1994 
maxillary bones nasal bone and petrous part of right temporal bone was present."
In the opinion of the Medical Officer, the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage on account of the injury which was a gun shot injury and the death was instantaneous. Death had occurred within 48 hours of the receipt of the injury.
The accused were arrested and sent up for trial. At the trial charge was framed against Jang Singh under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act whereas Gurmail Singh was charged under Section 29 of the Arms Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution examined Dr. I.C.Taneja (PW-1), Clerk Amarjit Singh, (PW-2), HC Sajjan Singh (PW-3), C. Bhagat Singh (PW-4), Indresh Khanna (PW-5), and ASI Major Singh (PW-6).
The accused denied all the circumstances which appeared against them but examined no defence. Jang Singh pleaded that he had been falsely framed because of his inability to give Rs. 5000/- per month to the Station House Officer, Police Station Ghanaur as sale of liquor had gone down due to terrorist activities. On August 15, 1990, ASI Major Singh and HC Sajjan Singh (PW-3) had again asked for money. He had refused to pay and hot words were exchanged between them. The two police officials threatened that they would settle the score with him at an appropriate time.
On August 17, 1990 an unidentified and unclaimed dead body was found in the open fields and Jang Singh was framed for the murder. Jang Singh denied that he knew the deceased or that he was his servant. In fact the servant employed at the vend was not the deceased but one Balwinder Singh Crl. Appeal No. 56 DBA of 1994 
son of Charan Singh of Sanaur.
The learned Sessions Judge discussed the prosecution evidence in detail and came to the conclusion that the evidence of HC Sajjan Singh (PW-3) and C. Bhagat Singh (PW-4) could not be believed as their presence at the liquor vend at the time of occurrence was improbable. The basis for the learned Sessions Judge to come to this definite and conclusive opinion were two entries in the Daily Diary Register which demonstrated that the version that HC Sajjan Singh and C. Bhagat Singh witnessed the murder of the deceased at 10.30 PM could not be accepted. According to DDR No. 19 (exhibit DB) HC Sajjan Singh left the Police Station at 4 PM and was accompanied by C. Bhagat Singh but according to the DDR No. 20 (exhibit DC) C. Bhagat Singh had returned at the Police Station with Manoj Kumar at 5.05 PM. Therefore, the police record itself showed that Bhagat Singh could not be with HC Sajjan Singh at the liquor vend at Jand Mangohli at the time of the occurrence. This conclusively established that these two witnesses had not witnessed the occurrence.
It is really very difficult for the State to disown the above Daily Diary Reports because these are entries made in the roznamcha maintained at the Police Station to which the accused could have had no access. The entire edifice of the prosecution case had been built up on the testimonies of HC Sajjan Singh (PW-3) and C. Bhagat Singh (PW-4) who were allegedly on a routine patrol. The two witnesses not only testified that they saw the occurrence but also had overheard the conversation between the accused and the deceased before the deceased was shot by the accused. The occurrence had taken place at 10.30 P.M. and it is somewhat impossible to accept that HC Sajjan Singh (PW-3) and C. Bhagat Singh (PW-4) had Crl. Appeal No. 56 DBA of 1994 
arrived at the liquor vend at precisely the same time.
Daily Dairy Register at Police Stations is maintained under rule 22.48 of the Punjab Police Rules, Volume-3 and is known as Register No.
II. The procedure of making entries has been meticulously laid down in Rule 22.48 (2). According to this sub-rule, all entries in the station diary shall be made by the officer in charge of the police station or by the station clerk. Literate officers making a report shall read the report recorded and append their signatures. Every matter recorded in such diary shall be so recorded as soon as possible. Each separate entry shall be numbered and the hour at which it was made shall commence each such entry. If the hour at which the information, or otherwise, containing such entries reaches the police station differs from the hour at which such entry was made, both hours shall be stated. As soon as entry has been made in the diary, a line shall be drawn across the page immediately below it.
Furthermore, the Rule 22.49 provides the matters which are to be entered in Register No. II. According to Rule 22.49 ( c ), entry shall be made with regard to hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty.
This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal.
According to Rule 22.49 (d), every police officer of or above the rank of head constable, when returning from duty other than an investigation in which case diaries are submitted, shall have an entry made in the daily diary by the station clerk or his assistant showing the places he Crl. Appeal No. 56 DBA of 1994 
has visited and the duties performed by him during his absence from the police station.
In this case, Report No. 19 is exhibited DB and was entered at 4 P.M. on August 16, 1990. In this report, it was mentioned that PHG Avtar Singh armed with a rifle, PHG Dharam Pal armed with rifle, have been deputed at liquor vend at Loh Simbli and the liquor vend at Jand Manghouli. Entries have also been made regarding some other constables who had been deputed for duty at the liquor vends at Meel and Ghanaur.
They all had been deployed with arms and ammunition and had been sent out to attend their respective duties. It is important to note that in the last lines of this report it has been shown that HC Sajjan Singh and C. Bhagat Singh had been deployed at liquor vend at Jand Manghouli and arms and ammunition had been delivered to them.
The next report is Report No. 20 Ex. DC recorded at 5.05 P.M.
Herein it has been stated that C. Manoj Kumar and C. Bhagat Singh returned from Police Station Lalru and deposited their loaded arms and ammunition.
The above reports show that C. Bhagat Singh (PW-4) returned after HC Sajjan Singh (PW-3) had left and even then Bhagat Singh (PW-4) is shown to have accompanied HC Sajjan Singh (PW-3) at 4 PM, as per entry signed by HC Sajjan Singh (PW-3). It is difficult to accept the testimony of HC Sajjan Singh (PW-3) because his departure from the police station was the last to be recorded whereas two PHGs had already been deputed for duty at Loh Simbli and Jand Manghouli. The entries prove that he had created a false report to include his name in this report in order to become an eye witness along with C. Bhagat Singh (PW-4) who had not Crl. Appeal No. 56 DBA of 1994 
even returned when the departure entry was made.
Once the defence had succeeded in establishing that HC Sajjan Singh (PW-3) and C. Bhagat Singh (PW-4) were false witnesses, the learned Trial Judge very correctly went on to hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against Jang Singh and extended the benefit of doubt to him to acquit him of the charge.
We have carefully gone through the record and the judgment of the learned Trial Judge and are unable to find any defect in the reasons given by him to acquit Jang Singh and Gurmail Singh of their respective charges. The learned Judge took the correct view. The occurrence taking place at 10.30 PM at a remote liquor vend where the presence of the witnesses was extremely doubtful. Exhibits DB and DC have convinced us that although both the reports were genuine yet an attempt was made to incorporate the departure of HC Sajjan Singh (PW-3) and C.Bhagat Singh (PW-4) in report No. 19 by making the entry at the end of the report. There is no scope whatever for holding that the official record of the police station should be overlooked and the evidence of the two witnesses accepted.
Consequently, the appeal being without merit is hereby dismissed.
27.3.2006 (MAHESH GROVER)
Crl. Appeal No. 56 DBA of 1994 
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.