- (1.) ORDER
(2.) . This appeal is filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High court who had allowed the appeal of the respondents who had been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Sangrur under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code and had been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000.00 and in default to undergo RI for one year. . According to the prosecution, on 4/10/1984, Kirpal Singh, deceased, was killed in his field at about 12 noon. The case of the prosecution is that in the morning Satinder Kaur (Public witness 3 - the 17-year-old daughter of Kirpal Singh went to their fields at about 7.30 a.m, to pick cotton. Kirpal Singh, deceased, reached the fields at about noontime on his tractor. Near the tubewell a room has been constructed where, on the arrival of her father, PW 3 prepared tea. After finishing tea Public Witness 3 picked up the utensils and started cleaning them, taking water from the tubewell. At that time, Baldev Singh, respondent 1 armed with a gandasa, Sher Singh, Respondent 2 armed 294 with a takwa and one more person viz., Tara Singh armed with a gandasa appeared at the scene. Baldev Singh is reported to have shouted that Kirpal Singh should not be left alive whereupon Kirpal Singh tried to run out of the a room, but was surrounded by the accused. Each of the accused is alleged to have given a blow each on the head of Kirpal Singh, who fell down, whereupon respondent 1 gave two more gandasa blows on the front side of his neck. Nand Singh Public Witness 4 who was irrigating his land, which was adjoining the tubewell, came running and he also saw the attack on the deceased. Thereafter the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence, . Nand Singh (Public witness 4 went to the village and informed the relatives of Kirpal Singh about the incident. Thereafter Satinder Kaur (Public witness 3 and Gurbax Singh, her uncle, started for Police Station Sherpur. The first information report (hereinafter referred to as the FIR) was recorded at the police station by ASI Kirpal Singh at 2.30 p.m. on that very day, i.e., 4-10- 1984. In the said FIR the aforesaid incident was narrated and it was specifically mentioned that the attack on Kirpal Singh deceased was witnessed by Satinder Kaur (Public witness 3 as well as Nand Singh (Public witness 4. The copy of the FIR was then sent to the Magistrate, Sangrur and the same was carried by Public Witness 7. In the endorsement which is made by the Magistrate the time of receipt of the FIR is indicated as being 6 p.m. and it was also mentioned in two places that the date of receipt is 5/10/1984 which was then corrected and initialled by the Magistrate himself as 4/10/1984.
(3.) . The three accused were then arrested and sent for trial. The main evidence on behalf of the prosecution, apart from the FIR which had been filed, was the eyewitness account of Satinder Kaur (Public witness 3 and Nand Singh (PW 4. The trial court vide its judgment dated 10/10/1985 accepted the veracity of the eyewitness account and came to the conclusion that the three accused had committed the murder of Kirpal Singh and it found them guilty under S. 302/34 Indian Penal Code and awarded the above mentioned sentence. . The accused thereafter filed appeal before the High court. While examining the evidence of PWs 3 and 4, the High court observed that Public Witness 3 had stated that no one else had witnessed the incident when her father was attacked. It also noted that in her statement she had failed to give the name of the third accused who had assaulted her father and it was observed that it would have been natural that she would have enquired from Nand Singh (PW 4 and other persons about the identity of the third accused. One more circumstance which was taken into consideration by the High court in coming to the conclusion that Public Witness 3 may not have been present at the place of occurrence was that in his statement under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code, Nand Singh (PW 4 had not stated that Satinder Kaur (Public witness 3 had witnessed the occurrence. The statement of Public Witness 4 was not accepted by the High court because, firstly, Satinder Kaur (Public witness 3 had not mentioned that Nand Singh (PW 4 had witnessed the occurrence. The High court also noticed the change in the date from 5th October to 4th October which had been made by the Magistrate on receipt of the FIR. According to the court, if this had been an individual act of correctness of a bona fide clerical mistake, then it could 295 be ignored, but in the light of the failure of Nand Singh to name Satinder Kaur as an eyewitness before the police the High court concluded that the FIR was not as prompt as the prosecution wanted the court to believe. It, therefore, concluded that the FIR was recorded some time later. The High Court then recorded the finding that the two principal witnesses, viz., PWs 3and 4 may not have been present at the scene of occurrence and, therefore, the accused were given the benefit of doubt and their appeals were accepted.;