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 Criminal Appeals before the High Court 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. Firstly it was recorded 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, the medical evidence was
clearly at variance with the ocular version rendered prosecution version unsustainable.
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.
Though it cannot be said 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
above 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 appeal to be a fit case where any interference is called for.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
New Delhi, October 21, 2008.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1064 OF 2003
STATE OF PUNJAB ... Appellant(s)
Versus
AVTAR SINGH ... Respondent(s)
Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
New Delhi, October 21, 2008.