As regards Som Nath P.W. 14 , aged about 18 years, who is alleged to have brought Harnam Singh and Balwant Singh in his tempo to the Police Station in the companypany of the police officials, the learned Judge found that though the witness asserted that he was driving the tempo for the last about 5 years, he was number in possession of any licence till the date of his evidence, that it was surprising how he companyld remember the date 6th of September, 1972 as the date on which he brought Balwant Singh in his tempo to the police station when he companyld number remember other dates of other occasions when his tempo had been requisitioned by the police and who were the police officials who had travelled in his tempo on those occasions and that his statement had been recorded by the police as late as on 17th September, 1972 though he was shown to have remained in Panipat throughout.
In view of these facts and the other material on record the learned Judge came to the companyclusion that Ex.
1 and Ram Kishan also Raised pleas of alibi suggesting that on the night in question they were number at police station Sadar Panipat but were away on duty elsewhere and examined defence witnesses to support their case.
S.P. to have the autopsy on the dead body done by Chief Medical officer Karnal instead of by the local Medical officer.
The learned Judge further pointed out that in the telegram Ex.
Later on he was found to be Balwant Singh companysequently a case under s. 458 IPC had been registered at the police station Sadar Panipat on the information given by Bhim Singh DW2 and that during this operation currency numberes worth Rs.
S.P. Iqbal Singh PW 16 , with which portion he was companyfronted, that he had seen the dead body of Balwant Singh for the first time at the morgue.
I and enquired from him about the matter for which the deceased Balwant Singh had been summoned but appellant No.
1 summoned some persons suspected of having companymitted a theft to the Police Station Banta P.W.7 on being summoned through appellant No.
DE on September 9, 1972, stating his version as to what had transpired, which substantially became the defence version at the trial.
Appeal From the Judgment and order dated the 22nd November, 1976 of the Punjab Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
l s strict surveillance over their illegal activities.
In the morning at about 6.30 on September 7, 1972 Vir Singh PW6 who came out of the police station told Joginder Singh PW4 and his companypanions, who were still waiting outside the police station, that the three appellants and Ram Kishan had companytinuously beaten Balwant Singh inside the police station for the whole night and that he was number sure whether Balwant Singh was alive or number and that the appellants were companyspiring to some how or other dispose of the dead body.
According to the prosecution further, within their sight Balwant Singh deceased and Harnam Singh W.5 were taken in a room of the police station where Moharrir A Head Constable Balwant Singh PW 15 used to sit, and while Joginder Singh P.W. 4 and his companypanions were standing just outside the police station they heard the cries of Balwant Singh deceased who was saying that he was innocent and should number be beaten.
2260/ alongwith one gold ring belonging to Bhim Singh had been stolen the investigation was still in hand and the search for the second accused was being made.
2 and 3 and Ram Kishan in the tempo driven by Som Nath P.W.14 on the night between 6th and 7th September, 1972 ?
I Ram Chander and Ram Kishan had number been mentioned at all and this fact assumed importance especially when it was immediately after getting information about the assault on Balwant Singh from Vir Singh PW 6 in the morning at 6.30 a.m. Amarjit Singh made that application as directed by Joginder Singh PW 4 .
With this background he examined their evidence with great care and caution and came lo the companyclusion that numbere of them was worth relying upon and their evidence hopelessly fell short of companynecting any of the appellants with the offences charged.
At about 7 or 7.30 p.m. On September 7, 1972, Joginder Singh PW4 companytacted Dy.
Appellant No.
Ram Chander appellant No 1 had been posted as a Station House officer, Police Station, Sadar Panipat a few days before the occurrence, while appellants Nos 2 and 3 Chand Ram and Baljeet Singh and Ram Kishan were working as Assistant Sub Inspector, Head Constable and Constable respectively under him at that Police Station.
Both the thieves opened an attack on him with lathis which they were carrying but many persons of the village also gathered there carrying lathis that one of the thieves who was a Sikh succeeded in running away while the other was knocked down by the people who gave him many lathi blows.
For these reasons the learned Judge was number prepared to accept Som Naths evidence and if that be so the very A basis of the prosecution story that deceased Balwant Singh was taken to the police station on the night in question, was kept in custody there and was assaulted by the appellants, would fall to the ground.
their persons allegedly suffered by them at the time of causing injuries to deceased Balwant Singh.
At the instance of Joginder Singh PW4 , Amarjit Singh P.W.12 went to the Sub Divisional Magistrates Court, Panipat and got an application Ex.
PG, the regular First Information Report lodged by Joginder Singh as late as on 9th September, 1972 had been got drafted after holding deliberations and companysultations in which detailed allegations were made against the appellants mentioning even the sections of the Penal Code.
Main question was whether the prosecution discharged the onus of proving companyvincingly that the appellants were involved in such assault ?
I created false evidence by preparing documents in companynection with the theft said to have been companymitted in the house of Bhim Singh DW2 with a view to escape from legal punishment in companynection with the murder of Balwant Singh ?
By this time it had become that Balwant Singh had succumbed to the injuries received by him and therefore Joginder Singh requested the Dy.
What is more, Amarjit Singh P.W. 12 had stated before the Dy.
I at the Police Station whereupon Joginder Singh P.W.4 his brother and other members of his family requested that Balwant Singh should number be taken to the police station at that odd hour and that they themselves would produce him before the S.H.O. on the following morning but their request went unheeded and reluctantly Balwant Singh and his servant Harnam Singh PW5 went with the police party in a tempo driven by Som Nath P.W.14 to the police station while Joginder Singh PW4 , Amarjeet Singh W.12 another brother of Balwant Singh and two others followed the police party on their bicycles on the way the police party told them the witnesses to go back, but Joginder Singh and his companypanions did number listen and followed the police party right up to the Police Station.
I denied that Balwant Singh deceased and Harnam Singh PW5 had been asked to attend the police station.
It was number disputed that Balwant Singhs death was homicidal and those responsible for assault on him would be guilty of murder.
on the first two points the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of Som Nath P.W.14 ,the driver of the tempo, Vir Singh PW6 , Banta Singh PW7 , Harnam Singh PW5 , Joginder Singh PW4 and Amarjeet Singh PW12 , out of whom Banta Singh and Harnam Singh were said to be stamped witnesses as they had injuries on .
Appellant No.
218 and 342 I.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal in Sessions Case No.
584 of 1976.
According to the prosecution on the evening of September 6, 1972, appellant No.
b what transpired at the Police Station, that is to say, whether deceased Balwant Singh was given a beating by the three appellants and Ram Kishan while he was allegedly in their custody ?
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
I for report.
The learned Judge further pointed out That in Ex.
The State of Haryana preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.
302 and 323 read with s. 34 I.P.C. as also under ss.
Meanwhile, as per the direction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, endorsed on Ex.
The prosecution case against the three appellants and Ram Kishan may briefly be stated as follows.
501 of 1973.
In short, according to the prosecution, Balwant Singh was tortured to death by the three appellants and Ram Kishan while he was in police custody on the night between 6th and 7th September, 1972.
and c whether the appellants particularly appellant No.
As regards the other prosecution witnesses mentioned above, the learned Judge referred to the admitted position that each one of them had past antecedents and history of shady character to his credit and being inimical towards the police attached to Panipat Police Station had shown anxiety to involve the Police officials in the case.
7th September, 1972, the earliest application made by Amarjeet Singh P.W. 12 to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the names of appellant No.
3 of 1973 but the learned Sessions Judge on an appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution as well as by the defence acquitted them of all the charges on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove the offences charged.
The High Court companyvicted the appellants under s. 302 read with s. 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and further companyvicted the first two appellants Ram Chander and Chand Ram under s. 218 I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each the substantive sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
Prem Malhotra for the Appellants.
2 and 3 and Ram Kishan went to the house of Balwant Singh, the deceased, and proclaimed that Balwant Singh was wanted by the appellant No.
PM Amarjit Singhs application , appellant No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by TULZAPURKAR, J. The three appellants alongwith one Ram Kishan since acquitted were tried for offences under ss.
Harnam Kaur P.W.13 mother of Balwant Singh deceased, after waiting in vain for her sons to companye back till 11 a.m. herself went to the police station Panipat and met Joginder Singh PW4 and others outside the police station and after hearing about the beating of Balwant Singh in the custody of the police station, at the instance of Joginder Singh PW4 , she sent a telegram Ex.
One more crucial circumstance was referred to by the learned Sessions Judge and that was that Joginder Singh PW 4 , Amarjeet Singh PW 12 had claimed that they had number allowed the dead body of Balwant Singh to be taken away from the police station and that it was brought out in the morning in the immediate presence of hundreds of persons and if that were so there should have been numberdearth of independent persons, who companyld have been examined for substantiating the prosecution case that at some stage of the other the dead body of Balwant Singh was at the police station but numberhing of the kind was done.
l told him to go back and to make inquiries about the matter on the following morning.
It may be stated that as desired by the deceaseds relatives the autopsy on the dead body of Balwant Singh was performed by Dr. P.N. Kapila P.W. l , Chief Medical officer, Karnal on September 8,1972, who numbericed as many as 33 external injuries and four internal injuries and opined that the cause of death was shock as a result of multiple injuries which were all ante mortem and were sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death companylectively.
PM drafted and presented it to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who marked it to the Station House officer, Sadar Panipat appellant No.
PM dt.
The appellants also pleaded that they were falsely implicated in this case by the companyplainant and others who were number merely related to and interested in the deceased but were inimical to them, being people of shady character and were aggrieved by the appellant No.
On analysing the entire material on record the learned Sessions Judge came to the companyclusion that the prosecution story was highly improbable and that the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses was number reliable.
N. Poddar for the Respondent.
1 submitted his report Ex.
3 held reached the Police Station at about 4/5 p.m. while Vir Singh P.W.6 and one Sukha Singh were personally brought by appellant No.
1 was among those police officials who had gone to the Dera of Balwant Singh.
l to the Police Station at about 7 p.m. at about 10 p.m. appellants Nos.
Joginder Singh P.W.4 approached appellant No.
PL to the Superintendent of Police Karnal to the effect that Station House officer, Sadar Panipat and five companystables and Havildar Baljeet Singh raided her house on the previous night and took her son Balwant Singh and servant Harnam Singh PW5 to the police station, that Balwant Singh had been beaten ruthlessly and taken to an unknown place and that his life was in danger and she prayed for an early action to save the precious life of Balwant Singh.
PL sent by Harnam Kaur PW 13 , to the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, it was stated that H.O Sadar Panipat alongwith five companystables and Hawaldar Baljeet Singh had taken away her son Balwant Singh and servant Harnam Singh to the police station whereas it was never the case of the prosecution that S.H.O. Ram Chander appellant No.
In view of the aforementioned rival versions put forward by the prosecution and the defence, three main questions arose for determination a whether deceased Balwant Singh was taken to the Police Station Sadar Panipat by the appellants Nos.
501 of 1973 to the High Court challenging the said acquittal and the High Court by its judgment and order dated 22nd November, 1976 allowed the State appeal so far as the three appellants before us are companycerned, but companyfirmed the acquittal of Ram Kishan.
