REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1365 OF 2002

State of Punjab ..Appellant

Versus

Mohinder Singh & Ors. ..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. State  of  Punjab  has  questioned  the  correctness  of  the  judgment

rendered  by  a  Division  Bench  of  the  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court

directing acquittal of the respondents.  Each of the respondents was found

guilty  of  offences  punishable  under  Sections  302,450,324,148  read  with

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’).  Learned

Additional  Sessions  Judge  Gurdaspur  has  found  the  accused  guilty  and

sentenced them as aforestated.

2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

At about 6 PM on October 31, 1995 Teja Singh (PW2) alongwith his

son  Joginder  Singh  and  his  daughter-in-law  Paramjit  Kaur(PW3)  was

present in his haveli in Village china Railwala.  His brother Fauja Singh and

his  son Nirmal Singh (PW4) were living in an adjoining house and were

present therein.  Soon thereafter accused Dalbir Singh alias Kala, Mohinder

Singh and Swinder Singh, all armed with knieves, Baljit Singh alias Beeta

armed with Dang, and Jasbir Singh alias Killa, Rachhpal Singh alias Pappu

and Ramjit Singh alias Rana all empty handed came to the spot.  Rachhpal

Singh  raised  a  lalkara  that  the  complainant  party  be  taught  a  lesson  for

having got Dalbir Singh arrested by giving false information to the police,

Ranjit  Singh then  caught  hold of  Joginder  Singh from his  long hair  and

Dalbir Singh gave two blows with the knife he was carrying.  The other

accused  also  caused  injuries  to  Joginder  Singh  with  their  respective

weapons. Nirmal Singh and Paramjit Kaur tried to intervene but they too

sustained  injuries  caused  by  the  accused.   Fauja  Singh  raised  an  alarm

2

hearing which all the accused ran away from the spot.  Joginder Singh was

removed  to  the  Civil  Hospital  Gurdaspur  where  he  was  declared  dead

whereas  the two injured eye witnesses,  Nirmal Singh and Paramjit  Kaur,

were medico-legality examined. Teja Singh (PW2) also left for the police

station but came across a police party headed by SI Sukhmohinder Singh

(PW 9) and made his statement to the said officer at 10.55 PM and on its

basis  the  FIR  was  registered  at  police  station,  Dhariwal  at  11PM.  The

special report was delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate at Gurdaspur at 7.22

AM, on November 1, 1995. The accused persons were arrested in the course

of  the  investigation  and  on  its  completion,  were  charged  for  offences

punishable under Sections 302, 450, 324, 148 read with Section 149 IPC.

They pleaded not guilty and were brought to trial.  

In  order  to  establish  the  accusations  prosecution  examined  eight

witnesses. Teja Singh, Parmjit Kaur and Nirmal Singh (PWs.2, 3 & 4) were

stated to be eye witnesses and the last two were injured eye witnesses.  The

trial  court  placed  reliance  on  their  version  and  directed  conviction  as

aforestated.   Accused  persons  filed  an  appeal  before  the  High  Court.

Primary stand before the High Court was that there was delay in lodging the

FIR and sending the special  report  and injuries  on the accused were not

3

explained.  It was also submitted that there was no mention in the FIR about

the injuries caused on Paramjit Kaur.

It was pointed out that Kuljit Kaur had sustained injuries inflicted by

Kala when she tried to intervene was not mentioned in the FIR. The High

Court accepted the stand and directed acquittal.

3. Learned  counsel  for  the  State  submitted  that  the  High  Court’s

judgment  is  practically  non-reasoned.   The  trial  court  had  analysed  the

evidence and noticed that there was no delay in either lodging the FIR or in

dispatching a special report.  Further the trial Court had categorically noted

that the injuries on the accused were superficial.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that

the whole truth has not been disclosed and therefore the High Court  was

justified in directing acquittal.  It is submitted that the scope for interference

with an order of acquittal is very limited and only where the judgment is

perverse or contrary to evidence on record, the appellate court in a given

case may interfere.

4

5. It is to be noted that the High Court’s judgment is practically non-

reasoned and whatever reasons have been indicated are not only sketchy but

also are based on surmises and conjectures.  There is also no discussion as

to  why  the  conclusions  of  the  trial  court  have  been  found  to  be

unsustainable.  It is to be noted that the trial court found categorically that

there was no delay in lodging or despatching the FIR to Illqua Magistrate

and the injuries on the accused persons were superficial.  It is accepted that

no  report  was  lodged  with  the  police  about  the  accused  person  having

sustained  injuries.  There  is  no  counter  case  and  interestingly  no  report

appears to have been sent by the doctor who it was claimed by the accused

persons  to  have treated  the accused  for  the injuries  sustained.   The trial

court noted that the occurrence took place around 6 PM. There were several

injured persons who were taken to the hospital. The trial court rightly noted

that  it  was  but  natural  for  Teja  Singh  whose  son  Joginder  Singh  had

sustained injuries to take him to the hospital to save his life and the life of

Paramjit Kaur and Nirmal Singh, instead of going first to the police station.

All these aspects have not been dealt with by the High Court.  There is also

no discussion about evidence of PWs 2 & 4 by the High Court.

5

6. In the aforesaid background we deem it proper to remit the matter to

High  Court  for  a  fresh  consideration  and  disposal  of  the  appeal  by  a

reasoned judgment.  Since the matter is pending since long, we request the

High court to explore the possibility of early disposal of the matter.

7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

…………..… …..........................J.

(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

   ……………….….......................J.

        (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) New Delhi, February 27, 2009

6