STATE OF PUNJABversusAVTAR SINGH

                                   [2008] 15 S.C.R. 37
          i

                                  STATE OF PUNJAB                           A
                                            v.
                                     AVTAR SINGH
                           (Criminal Appeal No.1064 of 2003)
                                  OCTOBER 21, 2008                          B
      ~              [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT,· C.K. THAKKER AND
                          LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

                    Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r.w. s.34- Conviction under, by
               Trial Court - Acquittal by High Court - On ground of delay inc
               lodging of FIR and in sending report to Elaka Magistrate and
               also on account of variance between ocular evidence and
               medical evidence - Interference with - Held: Not warranted,
               since prosecution failed to establish the accusations - The
               view taken by High Court was possible view.                   D

                   The Trial Court convicted the respondents under
               s.302 r.w. s.34 IPC. On appeal, High Court ordered
               acquittal on the ground that there was delay in lodging
               FIR and considerable delay in sending report to the Elaka E
               Magistrate and that the ocular evidence was at variance
               with the medical evidence. Hence the instant appeal .
..   _....._
                   Dismissing the appeal, the Court

                    HELD: There was delay in lodging the FIR .. a'nd/or F
               there was delay in dispatching the report to the Elaka
               Magistrate and/or the medical evidence was at some
               variance with the ocular evidence. The combined effect
               of the three factors leave no manner of doubt that
               prosecution had failed to establish the accusations. The G
               view taken by the High Court was a possible view and it
               is not a fit case where any interference is called for.
               [Para 4) [39-B-C]

                                           37                               H
    38        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 15 S.C.R.
                                                                          'r

A       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 1064 of 2003.

        From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.9.1997 of the
    High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
    Appeal No. 328-DB/1995.
B
          Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, T.P. Mishra and H.S. Sandhu          )'--
    for the Appellant. ;
                                       ,

         Varinder Kumar Sharma for the Respondent.
c
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challe_nge 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
D   respondent. Two appeals were filed before the High Court i.e.         1
    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
    eacry of the accused persons were guilty of offence punishable
E   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 Sant 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      >- "

F   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
G   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.
                                                                                 ,, .
H        3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that
                STATE OF PUNJAB v. AVTAR SINGH                    39
i                    [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

    the factors which have weighed with the High Court to direct       A
    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/
                                                                       8
    dr 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       C
    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.
                                                                       D
    D.G.                                          Appeal dismissed.