Full Judgment Text
STATE OF PUNJAB
v.
AVTAR SINGH
(Criminal Appeal No.1064 of 2003)
OCTOBER 21, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge is this appeal is to the
judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
of Punjab and Haryana directing acquittal of the respondent. Two
appeals were filed before the High Court i.e. Criminal Appeal No.
169–DB of 1995 and Criminal Appeal No. 328–DB of 1995. Both the
appeals were directed against the judgment of learned Sessions
Judge, Bhatinda holding that each of the accused persons were
guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). The two appellants in
the two connected appeals faced trial along with one Bant Singh who
was acquitted by the trial Court. Detailed reference to the factual
position is not necessary in view of the conclusions of the High Court
in the two appeals.
2. Firstly it was submitted that there was considerable delay in
lodging the first information report and secondly there was
considerable unexplained delay in sending the report to the Elaka
Magistrate. It was concluded by the High Court that these factors
apart from the fact that the evidence of the so called eye–witness
was not credible and cogent and also the medical evidence was
clearly at variance with the ocular version rendered prosecution
version vulnerable.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant–State submitted that the
factors which have weighed with the High Court to direct acquittal
cannot be maintained. Learned counsel for the respondent accused
on the other hand supported the judgment.
4. Though it cannot be laid as a rule of universal application that
whenever there is delay in lodging the FIR and/or there is delay in
despatching the report to the Elaka Magistrate and/or the medical
evidence is at some variance with the ocular evidence. The
prosecution has to fail in the instant case the combined effect of the
three factors leave no manner of doubt that prosecution has failed to
establish the accusations. The view taken by the High Court is a
possible view and we do not consider this to be a fit case where any
interference is called for.
5.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.