Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1783 (PNJ)

State of Haryana v. Riyasat Ali

2011-09-22

M.JEYAPAUL

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.: - The State has preferred Crl.A. No.691-SB of 2000, Crl.A. No.692-SB of 2000, Crl.A. No.693-SB of 2000, against the order of acquittal vide which accused-respondents Riyasat Ali and Dilshad were acquitted of the charges under Sections 307/394/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 2. The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is that on 23.5.1996, PW3 Bhagwan Singh was driving Rajasthan Roadways bus. PW4 Shiv Ram was on duty as Conductor in the said bus. The bus started on 22.5.1996 at 5.00 p.m. from Haridwar which was bound for Nagor in Rajasthan. On 23.5.1996, at about 4.00 a.m. the bus reached Panchnauta falling within the police station Nangal Chaudhary. PW3 was at that time sleeping in the cabin of the bus. The other driver Gaja Nand was on the wheels driving the bus. The Conductor raised noise. Accused Riyasat Ali fired from his pistol. Accused Dilshad also was carrying a country made pistol. Both the accused made an attempt to run away. Both the accused were apprehended with the help of the passengers. PW9 Sarwan Singh was one of the passengers who witnessed the occurrence. 3. Dr. Ram Avtar found 3 contusions on the head, left and right leg on the person of PW4 Shiv Ram and 1 contusion on forehead and another contusion on the right leg on the person of PW3 Bhagwan Singh. All the injuries were found to be simple in nature. The Investigating Officer having recovered the pistol from the accused laid final report. 4. The trial Court having gone through the entire materials on record returned a finding that no case was made out as against these accused in both the cases. 5. I heard the submissions made on either side. The entire materials on record also were thoroughly perused by me. 6. Firstly, it has been established by the defence through DW1 Dr.Ram Avtar that accused Dilshad sustained 5 lacerated wounds and one abrasion and accused Riyasat Ali received 3 abrasions, 3 lacerations and 1 contusion. One of the injuries found on the person of Riyasat Ali was found to be grievous in nature. But surprisingly, the prosecution has not come forward with any explanation as to how these two accused sustained injuries in the occurrence. 7. One of the injuries found on the person of Riyasat Ali was found to be grievous in nature. But surprisingly, the prosecution has not come forward with any explanation as to how these two accused sustained injuries in the occurrence. 7. PW3 Driver, PW4 Conductor and PW9 one of the passengers of the bus were examined by the prosecution as eye witnesses to the occurrence. It is found that they have come out with a totally inconsistent and contradictory version before the trial Court. Who fired at the resistance of the Conductor Shiv Ram, was not clearly spoken to by PW3, PW4 and PW9. They have come out with different versions as to the person who actually fired at the resistance of PW4. 8. It is found that only one pistol was sent to the FSL for examination. The other pistol alleged to have been recovered was not at all sent for examination to the FSL. The FSL report also does not support the case of the prosecution. 9. There is no evidence to show that any of the passengers received even pellet injuries on their person. It was really surprising that nobody sustained any injury in spite of the fact that the accused fired allegedly aiming the roof of the bus. If at all PW4 had given stiff resistance to the attempt made by the accused, the other accused who was armed with the weapon would have definitely aimed and shot at him. The prosecution has come out with a totally unbelievable story. 10. The recovery part of the case of the prosecution is found to be totally unbelievable. The accused was infact paraded by the passengers to the police station. The passengers had not cared to seize the weapons from the accused. The prosecution has come out with a story that the weapons were recovered from the bus. When the accused had used those weapons and they were thereafter apprehended by the passengers, the accused would not have had time to keep those weapons in a bag and keep it hidden under the seat of the bus. Further the damaging version is that all the passengers were thoroughly checked by the police at the bus stand in Delhi. Had such a checking been done, the accused would not have possessed such weapons. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused collected weapons on the way. Further the damaging version is that all the passengers were thoroughly checked by the police at the bus stand in Delhi. Had such a checking been done, the accused would not have possessed such weapons. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused collected weapons on the way. 11. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the trial Court has rightly doubted the version of the prosecution and acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt to them. Therefore, in my considered view, there is no merit in the appeals preferred by the State as against the acquittal recorded by the trial Court in all the cases. 12. Therefore, confirming the judgement of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in all the cases, the appeals are dismissed. ----------0BSK0----------