Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 73 (HP)

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. RAM SINGH

2000-04-05

K.C.SOOD

body2000
JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—This appeal of the State is directed against the acquittal of the respondents Ram Singh and Gumant Ram (hereinafter referred to as A-l and A-2) for offences punishable under Sections 147, 447,325 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu dated 25.5.1996. 2. Prosecution case, as disclosed in the statement of Ahi Chand (PW-1) is that on 1.5.1993, he was working in his fields alongwith his son Baldev Singh (PW-2) and his daughter Lata Devi (PW-4). At about 7.00 a.m., Ram Singh (A-l), Gumant Ram (A-2) and their other family members Bahadur, Om, Peg Ram, Shari Devi, Premla, Keshav Ram, and Nok Singh came to the field and started beating Ahi Chand, his son Baldev Singh and daughter Lata Devi. All of the accused were armed with Dandas. Ahi Chand, Baldev Singh and Lata Devi sustained injuries. Ahi Chand sustained fracture of right arm. Six Dandas, with which the accused were armed, were handed over by Baldev Singh (PW-2) to the police during the course of investigation. 3. Learned trial Magistrate charged all the accused, namely Ram Singh, Gumant Ram, Om Prakash, Peg Ram, Premla Devi, Shari Devi, Ama Devi, Nokh Singh, Keshav Ram and Bahadur Lai for offences punishable under Sections 147, 447, 325 and 506 IPC. The accused claimed trial. Learned Magistrate vide his judgment dated 17.11.1995 acquitted accused Om Prakash, Shari Devi and Ama Devi and convicted the remaining accused including A-l and A-2 for all the offences charged with, namely, under Sections 147, 447, 325 and 506 IPC. Feeling dis-satisfied with the conviction, all the convicted accused preferred two sets of appeals. One appeal No. 33 of 1995 was filed by Ram Singh and Gumant Ram. The other appeal was filed by Bahadur Lal, Peg Ram, Premla Devi and Nokh Singh. Both these appeals were taken up together and disposed of by the impugned judgment acquitting all the accused. 4. Feeling dis-satisfied with the acquittal of A-l and A-2, State has preferred this appeal. 5. I have heard Shri R.M Bisht, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State and Shri Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents. I have also been taken through the evidence by Shri Bisht, 6. 4. Feeling dis-satisfied with the acquittal of A-l and A-2, State has preferred this appeal. 5. I have heard Shri R.M Bisht, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State and Shri Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents. I have also been taken through the evidence by Shri Bisht, 6. Learned first appellate court has discussed the entire evidence in detail and concluded that the prosecution has not been able to establish any case against the accused. I see no reason to differ with the conclusions arrived at by the learned first appellate court on reappraisal of the entire evidence. 7. Ahi Chand (PW-1), the complainant in this case, lodged the F.I.R. in terms of Ext. PW-1/A alleging that when he was working in his fields alongwith his son and daughter, all the accused came to his field. Ram Singh asked him as to why he was cultivating the field. He replied that the field belongs to him, on which Ram Singh and Gumant Ram started beating him. He received injuries on his head, left eye and wrists of both of his hands. His daughter Lata Devi was also beaten by Peg Ram with Danda and his son Baldev Singh was beaten by Keshav Ram, Nokh Singh and Bahadur with Dandas who also sustained multiple injuries. Now, appearing as PW-1, Ahi Chand does not name any of the accused in particular, who gave Danda blows to him or to his son and daughter. What he states is that all the accused came together and started beating them with Dandas and all of them sustained injuries. It is his evidence that he, his son and his daughter were rescued by Tek Singh and Thakur Dass. Similarly, it is the evidence of Baldev Singh (PW-2), son of PW-1, that when they were working in their fields at 7 a.m. on the date of incident Ram Singh, Bahadur and other accused appeared, objected to their cultivating the field. All the accused were armed with dandas. He does not name any particular accused, who gave Danda blows. He does not say that they were rescued by Tek Singh and Thakur Dass. Even Lata Devi (PW-4) does not speak about the presence of Tek Singh and Thakur Dass. It is admitted case that Tek Singh and Thakur Dass are close relatives of the complainant Ahi Chand. He does not name any particular accused, who gave Danda blows. He does not say that they were rescued by Tek Singh and Thakur Dass. Even Lata Devi (PW-4) does not speak about the presence of Tek Singh and Thakur Dass. It is admitted case that Tek Singh and Thakur Dass are close relatives of the complainant Ahi Chand. The evidence of these two witnesses, being ocular evidence, was of utmost importance. But they were withheld by the prosecution on the plea that these two witnesses have been won over by the accused. The plea, to say the least, is preposterous. Both these witnesses are not related to the accused in any manner. On the other hand, both of them are closely related to the complainant. Tek Singh is the real newphew of the complainant Ahi Chand and Thakur Dass is his wifes brother. They could not have been won over by the accused. In the circumstances, legitimate presumption under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act can be drawn that had these two witnesses been produced by the prosecution, they would not have supported the I version of the complainant. 8. As noticed by the learned first appellate court, the assertion of I the complainant that field belongs to him has been found to be incorrect. In fact, the land on which the dispute arose between the complainant party and the accused is a joint land of both the complainant and the accused. It is so evident from the copy of the jamabandi, Ext. DA which was produced by the complainant to the Investigating Officer and this position is not disputed before me. In the circumstances, there is no question of the accused having trespassed into the land of the complainant. 9. It is interesting to note that another son of the complainant Dhian Singh lodged report with the police of this very incident at 10 a.m. in terms of Ext. DW-l/A as proved by Head Constable Pawan Kumar of Police Station, Banjar. It is his evidence that Dhian Singh son of Ahi Chand lodged the report on 1.6.1993 at 10 a.m. copy of which is Ext. DW-l/A as proved by Head Constable Pawan Kumar of Police Station, Banjar. It is his evidence that Dhian Singh son of Ahi Chand lodged the report on 1.6.1993 at 10 a.m. copy of which is Ext. DW-1/ A. Now, the first version of the incident as given in this report is that Dhian Singh was working in the field when Gumant Ram (A-2) entered the field, objected to his cultivating this particular field and then started beating him with Dandas. As a result he sustained multiple injuries. It is significant to note that he does not name any other accused nor does he state anything about his father Ahi Chand, brother Baldev Singh or sister Lata Devi. The circumstances under which another report of the same incident was lodged with the police by Ahi Chand, in terms of Ext. PW-l/A, implicating all the accused are not explained on record nor learned Assistant Advocate General has been able to explain this aspect of the case. The possibility of the F.I.R. (Ext. PW-l/A) being the result of deliberations to implicate the accused cannot be ruled out. 10. It is case of the prosecution, as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that PW-1 complainant Ahi Chand sustained fracture of the right arm. He was examined by the Medical Officer, Dr. Vinay Kumar (PW-3) who issued the medico-legal certificate (Ext. PW-3/C). Now, the medico-legal certificate is thumb marked by Ahi Chand, whereas Ahi Chand appearing^ PW-1 has signed this statement in the court. The doctor has not identified Ahi Chand in the court. Therefore, the possibility of another person having been medically examined on that date by the doctor m respect of whom medico-legal certificate (Ext. PW-3/C) was issued, cannot be ruled out. It is also to be noticed that even Ahi Chand, appearing as PW-1 does not say that he sustained any fracture in this incident. What he states is that he was beaten by all the accused with Dandas and sustained injuries. Had he sustained fracture of the right arm, he would have so stated in his testimony. This apart, it is the evidence of Baldev Singh (PW-2) that he was carried to home by his father. If PW-2 is to be believed, then his father who had sustained fracture of the arm could not have with fractured arm, carried Baldev Singh to the residence. 11. This apart, it is the evidence of Baldev Singh (PW-2) that he was carried to home by his father. If PW-2 is to be believed, then his father who had sustained fracture of the arm could not have with fractured arm, carried Baldev Singh to the residence. 11. It may also be noticed that Dhian Singh, who lodged the report of this incident first in time, has not been examined by the prosecution. It is the evidence of Ahi Chand (PW-1) in his cross-examination that Dhian Singh was not present in the field when the incident took place and he is not aware if Dhian Singh reported the incident to the police. But then again he corrects himself to say that Dhian Singh had voluntarily gone to the police station to lodge the report. According to Baldev Singh Dhian Singh was not present in the field at the time of incident, but he had accompanied him to police station. In his own words, "Dhian Singh was not present in the field on that day. He was in Dogri. Dhian Singh did not lodge any report with the police." (Emphasis supplied). 12. PW-4 Lata Devi has another version. According to her, Dhian Singh was not present in the field at the time of the incident and he came to village Rajera later in a vehicle. It is her version that Dhian Singh lives in Dogri which is about 3-4 kms. from the land where the incident took place and that Dhian Singh came to know of this incident of his own and that nobody was sent to inform Dhian Singh about the incident. 13. The evidence even of the complainant, his son and daughter, as noted above, is contradictory and on all material aspects therefore unworthy of any credit or reliance. 14. Learned first appellate court after appraising the evidence has taken a view that the evidence in this case is the result of deliberations. He particularly refers to the recovery of weapons of offence, namely, Dandas. According to recovery memo Ext. PW-2/A, six Dandas, the alleged weapons of offence, were produced by Baldev Singh (PW-2) in the presence of Tek Singh and Thakur Dass. It is the evidence of Baldev Singh that he produced six Dandas. However, in cross-examination, he admits that these Dandas were snatched from the accused not by him, but by Thakur Dass and Tek Singh. PW-2/A, six Dandas, the alleged weapons of offence, were produced by Baldev Singh (PW-2) in the presence of Tek Singh and Thakur Dass. It is the evidence of Baldev Singh that he produced six Dandas. However, in cross-examination, he admits that these Dandas were snatched from the accused not by him, but by Thakur Dass and Tek Singh. If that be so, then apparently Baldev Singh could not have produced these Dandas to the police. Even Ahi Chand (PW-1) states that the Dandas were snatched by Thakur Dass and Tek Singh from the accused, but Lata Devi (PW-4) states that it was her father Ahi Chand, who handed over the Dandas to the police. In her own words, "Dandas (Ext. P-l) were handed over to the police by my father." Thus, the entire case of the prosecution becomes suspect. 15. It is the case of the accused that they have falsely been implicated. The version of the accused is that they were ploughing the field which is joint between the parties complainant party came and gave them beatings. They lodged report with the police in which Keshav Ram and Nokh Singh were the witnesses. The Investigating Officer (PW-5) admits that the accused had also lodged a report about this incident on the same day at about 10.30. a.m. in which the accused had also received injuries. They were also medically examined. But he does not disclose what happened to the report which was lodged by the accused. Learned first appellate court has observed and rightly so that the complainant Ahi Chand is a chronic litigant. Apart from the accused, he is in litigation with other persons of the village. The possibility of the accused having been falsely implicated by the complainant, for the reasons discussed above, is distinct and cannot be ruled out. 16. No other point has been urged before me. 17. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed. Bail bonds of the respondents are discharged. Appeal dismissed.