@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. Criminal appeal Nos. 1247-1248 of 1995 are preferred by one Punjab Singh, who was the informant in sessions case No. 31 of 1988 arising out of F.I.R. No. 66 dated 7th February, 1988, police station Sadar Malout, Faridkot. Criminal appeal No. 1249 of 1995 is filed by the state of Punjab. All these appeals have been filed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh made in criminal appeal No. 191-DB of 1990 and criminal revision No. 870 of 1990.
2. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals, briefly stated, are as follows:
The respondents accused in these appeals were charged for having caused the death of one Sarwan Singh on 7th February, 1988 at about 5.15 p.m. in village Guru Sarjodha Ka within the jurisdiction of police station Sadar Malout, Faridkot and also for having caused injuries to P.Ws. 4 and 5. They were, accordingly, charged for offences punishable under Sections 302/452/323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The sessions court, after trial, convicted the respondent, Virsa Singh, alone for having caused the murder of the deceased Sarwan Singh, found him guilty of offence punishable u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life, while the other three accused persons were acquitted of all the charges. The learned sessions judge relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5, who were treated as eye-witnesses by the prosecution, as also the motive alleged by the prosecution against the accused persons.
3. The respondent, Virsa Singh, challenged his conviction and sentence before the High Court in the above-stated criminal appeal, while the complainant, Punjab Singh, who is one of the appellants in the above-noted appeals before us, preferred a revision against the order of acquittal of Surjan Singh, Gopal Singh and Sohan Singh, who were accused nos. 2 to 4 before the sessions court.
4. The High Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the case put forth by it against the accused persons and allowed the appeal filed by Virsa Singh and dismissed the revision filed by the complainant, Punjab Singh.
5. As stated above, the aggrieved state has preferred the appeal against the acquittal of Virsa Singh and the complainant has preferred appeals against the dismissal of his revision filed against the acquittal of Surjan Singh, Gopal Singh and Sohan Singh.
6. The High Court, after discussing the material on record, came to the conclusion that the motive alleged against the respondent-accused cannot be accepted as having been proved in the alternative the same being not so serious as to persuade the accused persons to commit the murder in question. It also came to the conclusion that the evidence of the so- called eye-witnesses, P.Ws. 4 and 5 cannot be believed because their presence itself was doubtful. In regard to the prosecution case that PWs 4 and 5 suffered injuries in the attack by these accused persons, the High Court came to the conclusion that the same cannot be believed also because of the fact that injuries suffered by P.W. 4 was only a contusion which could be caused by falling down also. It also took notice of the fact that the said witness refused to go for radiological examination and, therefore, the High Court came to the conclusion that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of this witness. In regard to P.W. 5, the High Court noticed the fact that the injury in question was not externally visible and that only a complaint of pain was made by the said witness in her evidence. The High Court also noted that the prosecution could not establish that P.W. 5 was also present at the time of the incident, and therefore, it did not place any reliance on the evidence of this eye-witness. The High Court also noticed the fact that no independent witness as also the another brother of the deceased, by name Jasbir Singh, were examined even though, according to the prosecution, they were present at the time of the incident. In these circumstances, the High Court came to the conclusion that it is not safe to rely on the evidence of the eyewitnesses.
7. We have considered the material on record and we find no reason to disagree with the findings arrived at by the High Court. Assuming that another view is possible, sitting as an appellate court, we are not inclined to reverse the findings of fact arrived at by the High Court solely on this ground.
8. In view of the above, we find no merit in these appeals and the same are, accordingly, dismissed.
