Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 23 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. JASPAL SINGH

2000-02-12

M.R.VERMA

body2000
JUDGMENT Mr. Verma Judge- The State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 22.03.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge (Forest), Shimla, whereby the respondent accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) has been acquitted of the charge under section 5(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act punishable under Section 5(2) of the said Act now corresponding to section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) and section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.07.1993 when the accused was investigating case FIR No.95/93 under section 430 I.P.C. registered at Police Station, Jubbal on the instigation of some interested persons severely beat up Hukam Chand resulting in the fracture of his colour bone and piercing of his ear drum. When Chamo Devi (PW-8) mother of Hukam Chand (PW-6) pleaded for mercy and to spare said Hukam Chand the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as illegal gratification to spare said Hukam Chand (PW-6). Chamo Devi (PW-8) paid a sum of Rs.10,000/ - to the accused who in turn asked Chamo Devi not to report the matter to the police and to keep quiet in the matter. Hukam Chand was thereafter taken to Civil Hospital, Rohru where he was treated for a few days and thereafter was referred to I.G.M.C. & Hospital at Shimla. While in Shimla Hukam Chand made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police Ext.PA about his beating and taking the illegal gratification as aforesaid by the accused on the basis of which report daily diary Ex.PB was recorded at Police Station,Rohru and subsequently formal F.I.R. Ext.PW-16/A was recorded in the Police Station, Jubbal. During the Course of investigation the police obtained MLC Ext.PW-13/A about the medical examination of Hukam Chand from Dr.Prem Machhan (PW-13). As per the MLC Ext.PW-13/A tenderness over surgical spine C-4 and Cr5 of Hukam Chand was detected and he was got X-rayed. After perusal of the X-ray films fracture of C-4 vertibra (spine) was detected which was a grievous injury. As per the medical opinion the injury was caused with a blunt weapon and was about three weeks old at the time of medical examination of Hukam Chand on 09.08.1993 at 5 PM. After perusal of the X-ray films fracture of C-4 vertibra (spine) was detected which was a grievous injury. As per the medical opinion the injury was caused with a blunt weapon and was about three weeks old at the time of medical examination of Hukam Chand on 09.08.1993 at 5 PM. On production by accused one stick was taken in possession by the police vide memo Ext.PW-15/A. On the request of Superintendent of Police, Shimla Ext.PW-12/B, the District Magistrate, Shimla vide Ext.PW-12/A came to the conclusion that criminal proceedings initiated against the accused before the Court of law would meet the ends of justice, therefore, further action in the matter be taken accordingly. The Investigating Agency thereafter submitted the chargesheet against the accused who came to be tried by the learned Special Judge (Forest), Shimla on a charge under Section 5(1)(d) now corresponding to Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. To prove the charge against the accused prosecution examined 18 witnesses. 4. Accused in his "statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case as a whole and claimed to be innocent. He has stated therein that he has been falsely implicated in the case by the complainant with the connivance of Dy.S.P. K.S.Guleria and a case was already registered against the complainant Hukam Chand (PW-6) and the prosecution witnesses Rabinder Kumar (PW-10), Madanu Ram (PW-9), Souja Ram and Jimnu Ram under sections 379, 430,147 and 109 IPC. The accused however did not lead any defence evidence. 5. By the impugned judgment the learned Special |Judge came to the conclusion that the charge against the accused was not proved and accordingly acquitted the accused. Hence the present appeal. 6. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel for the accused and have also gone through the records of the case. 7. By the impugned judgment the learned Special |Judge came to the conclusion that the charge against the accused was not proved and accordingly acquitted the accused. Hence the present appeal. 6. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel for the accused and have also gone through the records of the case. 7. The learned Special Judge acquitted the accused on the basis of the conclusions that, (i) all the material witnesses examined by the prosecution are either near relations of the accused or are accused in the case F.I.R. No.95/93 under section 430 I.P.C. which the accused was investigating; (ii) that there are contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses; (iii) that there is no corroboration of the statements of the interested witnesses by any independent evidence including medical evidence; and (iv) that there had been delay of 16 days in reporting the alleged occurrence to the police. 8. The eye witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused are PW-1 Mohinder Singh, PW-6 Hukum Chand, PW-7 Liaq Ram, PW-8 Chamo Devi, PW-9 Madnu Ram and PW-10 Ravinder Singh are accused in the case F.I.R. No.95/93 under Section 430 I.P.C. in which the accused was conducting investigation. PW-1 Mohinder Singh though admits his presence on the spot at the relevant time but he has not supported the prosecution version about the alleged beating of Hukam Chand and taking Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification by the accused. The aforesaid other eye-witnesses, PWs 7&8 being close relations of the accused and PW-9 & PW-10 being accused in the case which was being investigated by the accused cannot be said to be independent witnesses. Though there is no rule of law that a relative or an accused in other case are not competent witnesses but as a rule of prudence their statements cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by some independent evidence. It is more so in view of the contradictions in the prosecution evidence and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. 9. There is no dispute that the F.I.R. in this case was lodged on the 16th day of the occurrence. It is more so in view of the contradictions in the prosecution evidence and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. 9. There is no dispute that the F.I.R. in this case was lodged on the 16th day of the occurrence. The delay in lodging the FIR is sought to be explained on the basis of the statement of PW-6 Hukam Chand that the accused had threatened him and police remained with him all along, therefore, he did not disclose the occurrence earlier. This statement is belied by the admission of this witness that on the date of occurrence when he was taken to the house of Pradhan Gram Panchayat (PW-17 Hari Mohan) he narrated the occurrence to said Pradhan and thereafter also informed the doctor about the circumstances in which he sustained the injuries. If so, the witness was not under threat not to disclose the occurrence to anyone. He further admits that his father on the 2nd or 3rd day of the occurrence advised him to complain to the Court. There is no explanation as to why the complaint was not made to the Court despite such advise. If the complainant could disclose the occurrence to the Pradhan Gram Panchayat and the doctor, the reason that the complainant could not report the matter to the police due to alleged threat is far from being satisfactory. The complainant (PW-6)appears to have falsely stated even the aforesaid facts. The concerned Pradhan of the Panchayat (PW-17) has been examined by the prosecution. Though he admits that complainant and accused amongst others had come to his house on the next day of the occurrence to get surety for the complainant to join investigation, but neither he has stated about any complaint having been made to him by PW-6 about the alleged beating nor he has stated about any injuries seen by him on the person of the complainant. The Doctor to whom the complainant might have disclosed the occurrence has not been named/examined. The fact however remains that had the complainant disclosed the occurrence as a cause of injuries on his person the doctor would have brought the matter to the notice of the police being a medico legal case. It is not the case that PW-6 due to the fear of police requested the concerned doctor not to report his version to the police. It is not the case that PW-6 due to the fear of police requested the concerned doctor not to report his version to the police. Thus, there is no reliable and satisfactory explanation of the delay caused in reporting the matter to the police. 10. Be it stated that it is admitted case of the complainant that his father had advised him to make a complaint to the Court. Such advise was admittedly given on 17 or 18 July, 1993, that is, on the second or third day of the occurrence. It is also admitted case of the complainant that the sum of Rs.10,000/- which were allegedly given by the mother of the complainant (PW-8) to the accused as gratification was infact the money of the father of the complainant who had given it for purchase of empty apple boxes for use in apple season. Why father of the complainant had not himself reported the matter to the Anit-Corruption Unit or why he himself did not lodge a complaint in the Court has not been clarified/explained. 11. The complainant himself admits in his statement that at the time of occurrence all persons from Harijan Basti were present. Thus, there could not be dearth of independent witnesses to corroborate his statement. But none from such persons has been examined. The only witness who is neither related to the complainant nor was accused in the case which was investigated into by the accused is PW-1 Mohinder Singh who has not supported the prosecution version. 12. In view of the above discussions it can be inferred without fear or being wrong that the present case is the outcome of due deliberations between the interested persons as a measure of retaliation to the involvement of the complainant and PWs Madnu Ram and Ravinder Singh as accused in the case F.I.R. No.95/93. Therefore, the inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. which has not been explained by any reliable and satisfactory reason, in itself is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 13. There were major contradictions in the evidence led by the prosecution. A perusal of plaint Ex.PA reveals that the beating of PW-6 was witnessed by his mother (PW-8) and so is stated in her statement Ex.DA and giving of Rs.10,000/- by her was witnessed by PW-6. 13. There were major contradictions in the evidence led by the prosecution. A perusal of plaint Ex.PA reveals that the beating of PW-6 was witnessed by his mother (PW-8) and so is stated in her statement Ex.DA and giving of Rs.10,000/- by her was witnessed by PW-6. However, in their statements in the Court, neither PW-8 states that her son (PW-6) was beaten by the accused in her presence nor PW-6 states that Rs.10,000/ - were given by his mother (PW-8) to the accused as illegal gratification in his presence to save him from being beaten by the accused. None of the other alleged eyewitnesses of the occurrence, namely, PW-9 Madnu Ram and PW-10 Ravinder Singh support the version that the accused demanded and received a sum of Rs.10,000/- from PW-8 Chamo Devi as gratification. 14. As per the complaint Ex.PA, due to the beatings given by the accused to the complainant, his ear drum was torn and corvical spine was broken rendering him physically handicapped. The weapon of offence however has not been disclosed in the complaint Ex.PA. In his statement in the court the complainant (PW-6) has stated that he was beaten with a black coloured stick and sustained injuries to his ear, corvical bone and fourth rib which was fractured. It is pertinent to note that he has not mentioned the fracture of his 4th rib in the complaint Ex.PA. According to PW-9 Madnu Ram the complainant was beaten with kicks, slaps and a stick and thereby sustained injuries on his neck and left arm. Thus he has given an improved and contradictory version of the alleged beatings. According to PW-10 Ravinder Singh, Complainant (PW-6) was beaten with kicks, fist blows and a stick and was in bad shape. He was also not stated about sustaining of any particular injury by PW-6. His statement evidently is an improvement in the statement of the complainant. 15. PW-13 Dr.Prem Machhan who medically examined the complainant (PW-6) found only one injury on the person of the complainant i.e. fracture of C-4 Vertibra. It is not believable that tearing of the eardrum and fracture of rib could not be detected if such injuries were sustained by the complainant The result is that the version of eye-witnesses who, as already stated, are interested witnesses, is not fully supported by the medical evidence, but is partially belied. 16. It is not believable that tearing of the eardrum and fracture of rib could not be detected if such injuries were sustained by the complainant The result is that the version of eye-witnesses who, as already stated, are interested witnesses, is not fully supported by the medical evidence, but is partially belied. 16. The above discussion leads me to the conclusion that the learned Special Judge after due appreciation and appraisal of the evidence on record, has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused. Therefore, the impugned acquittal does not call for any interference by this Court. 17. As a result the appeal merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 18. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged.