Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Jamit Singh v. Sant Singh - CRA-S-797-DBA-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 7284 (15 September 2006)

Crl.A.No.797-DBA of 2004


Crl.A.No.797-DBA of 2004

Date of Decision: 14-7-2006

Jamit Singh



1.Sant Singh

2.Gulzar Singh

3.Kulwant Singh son of Tarlok Singh

4.Tarlok Singh son of Udey Ram

5.Avtar Singh

6.Sukhdev Singh son of Sant Singh resident of Village Randhawa, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib

7.Karnail Singh son of Tarlok Singh resident of Village Madhopur, Police Station Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib 8.Gareeb Dass son of Som Nath

9.Jasvir Singh @ Jassi

10.Harpreet Singh @ Bittu son of Garib Dass 11.Balwinder Singh @ Babli son of Surjit Singh resident of Village Talania, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib

12.State of Punjab



PRESENT: Mrs.Baljit Kaur Mann,Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr.Rakesh Chopra,Advocate

for the respondents.


By this order we propose to dispose of Criminal Appeal Crl.A.No.797-DBA of 2004

No.797-DBA of 2004 as titled above which has arisen out of the order dated 11-10-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib in Sessions Case No.16-T dated 30-7-2002 whereby all the accused were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

In brief, the facts of the case are that on 1-4-2000 complainant Jamit Singh was sleeping in his house. At about 12.00 night all the accused were making preparation to take possession of the manure pit in front of the house of the complainant. The case of manure pit was pending between Bahadur Singh son of the complainant and Sant Singh accused.

Accused were going to construct wall forcibly there in the manure pit. Jamit Singh complainant went inside the house to wake up his sons. All the accused, who were armed with Dangs, lathies, Gandasies and spades entered the Courtyard of the complainant. Accused Sant Singh caught hold of the complainant and wrapped parna around the neck and twisted. At that time electric bulb was on. They also tried to hang the complainant on the branch of Neem Tree. Accused Karnail Singh gave Lathi blow on the right thigh of the complainant. Accused Kulwant Singh gave brick blow on the left leg of the complainant. Accused Sukhdev Singh gave brick blow on the left eye of the complainant. After the receipt of the injuries, complainant raised raula, which attracted his son Bahadur Singh to the place of occurrence, who witnessing through the window of his house. He came along with his mother Shanti, wife of the complainant and other family members. On seeing the following members, all the accused fled away from the spot along with their respective weapons.

It is further the case of the complainant that motive behind the present occurrence was that Bahadur Singh son of the Crl.A.No.797-DBA of 2004

complainant had filed a civil case against Sant Singh regarding the manure pit. The complainant was persuing the said case on behalf of his son Bahadur Singh. On the fateful night, no conveyance was available as well as the complainant party apprehended from the accused did not move to the hospital. It was in the morning the complainant called his son Kesar Singh from Sirhind, who took the complainant to Civil hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib where the complainant was medically examined and remained admitted there for five days. His statement was recorded by the police but no action was taken by the police which compelled the complainant to file the present complaint under Sections 323/324/307/452/457/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code against the present appellant.

Upon appearance of the accused before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, a prima facie case under Sections 323/307/450/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against all the accused for which they were charged. The aforesaid charges were read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution in all examined PW1 Dr.Ram Lubhaya, who medically examined Jamit Singh complainant and proved the copy of MLR Ex.PA, pictorial diagram showing seats of injuries Ex.PA/1 and X-ray Report Ex.P3. PW2 Amrit Lal, Draftsman, who proved the site plan Ex.PC.

Complainant-Jamit Singh appeared as PW3, who reiterated the version given by him in complaint as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.

PW4 Bahadur Singh is the eye witness and son of the complainant, who also supported the case of the prosecution. PW5 Gurmukh Singh is another eye witness and grandson of the complainant. PW6 is Constable Pal Singh, who Crl.A.No.797-DBA of 2004

proved the copy of DDR No.12 dated 2-4-2002 Ex.PW-6/A. It was thereafter that the complainant closed his case.

However, the accused were examined after the evidence of the prosecution under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they claimed innocence and accused Sant Singh pleaded as under: "Bahadur Singh son of the complainant filed suit for Permanent Injunction regarding the manure pit against him. His application

under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed with the suit was dismissed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Fatehgarh Sahib. Appeal preferred by Bahadur Singh son of

complainant was also dismissed by the

learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. Civil Revision preferred by Bahadur Singh before Hon'ble High Court was also dismissed. He further took the plea that to put the pressure upon the accused to waive their claim regarding the manure pit this false complaint has been filed because

Bahadur Singh son of the complainant is

working as Class-IV employee in Civil

Hospital Bhadson and he has got false MLR of his father Jamit Singh."

Whereas the other accused had taken the similar plea.

Accused, in defence also tendered certified copy of order Crl.A.No.797-DBA of 2004

dated 7-3-1998 Ex.D1, certified copy of judgment dated 1-4-1998 Ex.D2, certified copy of order Ex.D3 dated 19-11-1999 and closed the defence evidence.

After going through the prosecution as well as defence evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had acquitted the accused from the charges framed against them.

Dis-satisfied with the impugned order of acquittal, the complainant has now filed the present appeal against the order of acquittal.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case.

According to the learned counsel for the appellant,it has been submitted that the complainant had suffered the injuries as noticed by PW1 Dr.Ram Lubhaya, who medically examined injured Jamit Singh in the hospital on the following day of occurrence and noticed as under: "1.Abrasion 2 cms x 2cms and swelling 2 cms x 2cms below and lateral to left eye. Clotted blood presednt.

2. cms x 2 cm abrasion on chest.

3. 3.swelling 4cms x 4cms on medial side of right thigh. Swelling is blue coloured (kept under x-ray observation).

4. 4.3cms x 3cms swelling on right thigh just above lateral side of right knee joint.

5. Bruise red coloured about 5 cms x 2 cms on back of neck.

6. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1.5 cms on left lower Crl.A.No.797-DBA of 2004

leg 4 cms above left ankle joint (kept x-ray observation)

7. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm on the little toe of right foot."

He has also shown the pictorial diagram of the seats of the injuries. PW3 Jamit Singh has given the detailed manner in which he received the injuries at the hands of the accused. According to PW3 Jamit Singh, the entire occurrence was witnessed by his son Bhadur Singh from the window of his house as well as by PW5 Gurmukh Singh his grandson.

His wife Shanti Devi had also appeared at the spot but she has not been examined as a witness in this case. The motive for the accused to commit the crime was that a civil suit was pending between Bahadur Singh son of the complainant and accused Sant Singh with respect to the manure pit. It has also come on the record that the police had arrived at the hospital, met Jamit Singh injured. His statement was recorded by the police but no action was taken, which compelled the complainant to file the present complaint against the accused.

Thus, keeping in view the number of injuries suffered by the complainant at the hands of the accused as well as that a civil litigation is pending between the complainant and accused party, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in not convicting the accused for the offences for which they were charged.

On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the defence that according to the complainant and his witnesses, the injured had suffered four injuries whereas according to MLR Ex.PA, there are seven injuries found on the person of the complainant. The weapons used for Crl.A.No.797-DBA of 2004

causing all the injuries were blunt. It has also come in the cross-examination of PW1 Dr.Ram Lubhaya that the injuries found on the person of Jamit Singh could be caused by friendly hands and thus this possibility cannot be ruled out. On the specific question of injury No.5 on the person of Jamit Singh PW1 categorically stated that it could not be termed as dangerous to life. He has further stated that the injuries found on the person of Jamit Singh could be caused by fall on hard surface. Thus, there was a conflict between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence.

It is not disputed that the complainant party has lost in the civil suit upto the High Court. The copies of the orders have been produced in defence, further show the motive of the complainant to file a false complaint against the accused.

Learned counsel next contended that according to the testimony of PW3 Jamit Singh, the aforesaid occurrence was witnessed by Bahadur Singh from the window of his house but the site plan prepared by PW2 Amrit Lal,Draftsman, it is no where found that there was a window in the house of Bahadur Singh from where he could witness the occurrence.

According to PW3 Jamit Singh, the accused were armed with Gandasi, soti etc. while inflicting injuries but they used the bricks on the left leg of the complainant and accused Sukhdev Singh gave brick blow on the left eye . If they were armed with the deadly weapons then why did not they inflict injuries with their respective weapons on the complainant. He further submitted the version given by the complainant in the DDR Ex.PW6/A, he has nowhere disclosed that the accused trespassed in the house of Jamit Singh with an intention to murder him. A copy of the DDR reflects that the accused were armed with soties and iron rods and they were more than 20 to Crl.A.No.797-DBA of 2004

25 persons present at the place of occurrence. It was nowhere mentioned in the DDR that the occurrence was witnessed by his son Bahadur Singh through the window of his house along with Gurmukh Singh grandson of the complainant. All these facts and circumstances when taken together show that the accused have been falsely implicated in the present complaint.

It is a case where the complainant party has come with an improved version than the one set up in the complaint in the DDR Ex.PW6/A. In such like cases, it is normally the tendency of the complainant party to involve innocent persons to settle their claim. It was on this count that a doubt was created in the prosecution version and its benefit was given to the accused.

In net result, there is no force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.




July 14, 2006 JUDGE



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.