Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1656 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Amrish Rana

2011-03-23

V.K.SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, Judge The State is in appeal against acquittal of the respondent by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. III, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, vide judgment dated 16.8.2005 in Case No. 31-II-05/02, State Vs. Gurjant Singh and another, under Sections 353, 332, 224, 506, 504/34 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 2.1.2001, a police party headed by PW-11 SI/SHO Harnam Singh had taken three accused, namely, A-1 Gurjant Singh, A-2 Amrish Rana and one Harjinder Singh for production in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, in connection with a case pending against them in that Court. It is alleged that since A-1 Gurjant Singh and A-2 Amrish Rana had earlier indulged in quarrels with the witnesses in the said case, there was a direction from the Superintendent of Police to make them sit in the waiting room of the S.P. office and to produce them in the Court only when the case was called out. Accordingly, on 2.1.2001, three accused as aforesaid were taken by the police party to the waiting room in S.P Office, Una, to wait for their call in the Court. Against this backdrop, it is alleged that A-1 Gurjant Singh who was handcuffed, struck the handcuffs against the glass fixed in the door of the waiting room and broke the same. Thereafter, he grappled that one of the members of the police party, namely, C. Vijay Kumar No.317 (P-7) and as a result buttons of the shirt of the said Police Constable got broken. It was further alleged that thereafter A-1 Gurjant Singh struck his head against the aforesaid door and sustained injuries on his head. 3. On the above allegations, both the accused were booked for the above offences and sent up to face trial. On being charged, they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution evidence followed. It examined as many as 12 witnesses. 4. On close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined by the learned trial Court under Section 313, Cr. P.C, wherein they set up defence of total denial, innocence and false implication. However, they did not lead any evidence in their defence. The prosecution evidence followed. It examined as many as 12 witnesses. 4. On close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined by the learned trial Court under Section 313, Cr. P.C, wherein they set up defence of total denial, innocence and false implication. However, they did not lead any evidence in their defence. Later on A-1 Gurjant Singh fled from justice and was declared a Proclaimed Offender and ultimately A-2 Amrish Rana was acquitted, vide the impugned judgment dated 16.8.2005. 5. The learned trial Court has based its findings mainly on the ground that the evidence led by the prosecution is highly contradictory and thus, cannot be safely relied upon and further that there is no evidence worth the name against A-2 Amrish Rana. 6. I have heard learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellant-State, learned counsel for the respondent-accused No.2 and gone through the records. 7. Since A-1 Gurjant Singh had fled from justice and was declared a Proclaimed Offender, the case was decided only against A-2 Amrish Rana. A perusal of the statement of material eye witnesses examined by the prosecution, namely, PW-2 C. Kewal Khan, PW-4 Jagdeep Singh, PW-7 HHC Vijay Kumar and PW-11 SI/SHO Harnam Singh, would go to show that there is virtually no specific evidence against A-2 Amrish Rana except the bald statement made by some of them that “doshigan” (accused) had abused and intimidated the members of the police escort party. Whereas, PW-2 C. Kewal Khan has stated that A-1 Gurjant Singh who was handcuffed had struck his hand against glass fixed in the door and had grappled with PW-7 HHC Vijay Kumar, buttons of whose uniform were broken, PW-4 C. Jagdeep Singh has stated that both the accused had given pushes fist blows to PW-7 HHC Vijay Kumar and had tried to get themselves freed from the handcuffs. PW-4 C. Jagdeep Singh has also stated that A-1 Gurjant Singh who was handcuffed had struck his hands against the glass fixed in the door. PW-7 HHC Vijay Kumar has stated that A-1 Gurjant Singh had broken the glass fixed in the door and tried to flee by pulling the handcuffs. However, according to PW-11 SI/SHO Harnam Singh, A-1 Gurjant Singh had kicked the door and broken the glass. PW-7 HHC Vijay Kumar has stated that A-1 Gurjant Singh had broken the glass fixed in the door and tried to flee by pulling the handcuffs. However, according to PW-11 SI/SHO Harnam Singh, A-1 Gurjant Singh had kicked the door and broken the glass. Thus these are material contradictions between two sets of witnesses i.e. PW-2 C. Kewal Khan, PW-4 C. Jagdeep Singh and PW-7 HHC Vijay Kumar on the one hand and PW-11 SI/SHO Harnam Singh on the other with regard to the manner in which the glass fixed in the door was broken. Whereas, the former have stated that it was broken by A-1 Gurjant Singh who was handcuffed by striking his hand against the same, according to the latter the glass was broken after A-1 Gurjant Singh had kicked the door. This aspect cannot be lightly overlooked in the facts and circumstances of the present case, when all the eye witnesses have unanimously stated that the occurrence had taken place in their presence. 8. Above all except a bald reference to “doshigan”, there is no specific mention about the role played by A-2 Amrish Rana in the occurrence. Further more, when the accused were produced in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, on the day of occurrence at about 11:30 AM, A-1 Gurjant Singh had complained of injury on his head, pursuant to which the learned Magistrate had ordered that he be got medically examined. However, the medical examination was carried out on that day by PW3 Dr. R.C. Thakur, vide MLC Ex.PW3/A, only at about 4:00 PM. Even, PW-7 HHC Vijay Kumar was also examined only at about 2:40 PM by PW-1 Dr. M.K. Pathak, vide MLC Ex.PW1/A. Thus, there is also a doubt about the exact timing, manner and genesis of the alleged occurrence. 9. In view of the above, I do not find any lawful cause or basis for any interference with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 16.8.2005. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. 10. As prayed for by the learned counsel for the respondent-A-2, Amrish Rana, who is stated to be lodged in Model Central Jail, Kanda, Shimla, a copy of this judgment be sent to him through the Superintendent of the said Jail free of costs.