Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 753 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Ashok Kumar

2012-10-29

DEEPAK GUPTA, RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
Judgment Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment, dated 8.8.2006 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shimla, in Sessions Trial No. 1R/7 of 2004/01, whereby he acquitted the accused persons of having committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 325, 323, 342 read with Section 149 IPC. 2. The FIR, in this case, was recorded on the statement of PW3, Satish Kumar (complainant). The version of the complainant was that on 5.9.2000, at about 5 p.m. he was returning to his home in Village Khashdhar from Sandasu Bazaar. When he had gone a little ahead of Sandasu Bazaar, the accused accosted him. The accused Ashok Kumar was armed with an iron rod, accused Padam Singh was armed with a 'danda', accused Vicky was armed with an 'angshu' (an iron instrument used to collect grass) and accused Asha Devi and Sagarpuri were having sickles in their hands. 3. The accused attacked the complainant. The accused Ashok Kumar gave a blow with the iron rod on the head of the complainant. Thereafter, a scuffle took place and then, accused Padam Singh gave a blow with a 'danda' on the head of the complainant. All the other accused persons also attacked the accused, who received various injuries on his head, back of the body and right hand. The complainant started crying and on hearing his cries, his brotherinlaw, Dalip Singh, PW4, reached the spot and rescued the complainant from the clutches of the accused persons. In this fight, Dalip Singh also received injuries. Thereafter, Dalip Singh brought the complainant to the road side where PW5 Satish Kumar, son of Rattan Chand was present. 4. Admittedly, there is a dispute between the complainant on the one hand and the accused persons on the other, with regard to some passage which lies between the lands of both the sides. 5. The defence of the accused was that one Rattan Singh had borrowed Rs.1200/from accused Ashok Kumar and when he asked Rattan Singh to return money, a fight took place and then Ashok Kumar lodged a criminal complainant, Ext. D1 against Rattan Singh. 5. The defence of the accused was that one Rattan Singh had borrowed Rs.1200/from accused Ashok Kumar and when he asked Rattan Singh to return money, a fight took place and then Ashok Kumar lodged a criminal complainant, Ext. D1 against Rattan Singh. The complainant also admitted that when the police had taken accused Ashok Kumar for medical checkup, in the case filed by Ashok Kumar against Rattan Singh, the complainant, Satish Kumar along with PW5, Satish Kumar, son of Rattan Chand, and other persons had gone to the Hospital and met him. A suggestion was put to the complainant that at that time, he along with other persons threatened accused Ashok Kumar that he should withdraw his complaint. According to the defence, it is Dalip Singh, who started the fight and caught hold of accused Ashok Kumar and then a quarrel took place between both the sides. 6. While appearing in the Court, PW3 complainant gave a version that he was alone when he was attacked by the accused persons and on hearing his cries, Dalip Singh came to the spot and when Dalip Singh brought him to the road head, there he met with PW5, Satish Kumar, son of Rattan Chand. The version given by PW4, Dalip Singh is different. His version is that he was sitting in the shop of one Dev Raj at Sandasu Bazaar. He saw two boys running towards Village Telga and they were saying that some quarrel had taken place. He then rushed to the place of occurrence and found that the accused persons were giving beatings to PW3 complainant. When PW4 Dalip Singh tried to intervene, Padam Singh accused gave a blow with brick on his head. He also received injuries. He, thereafter, lifted PW3 complainant on his back and brought him near the Sandasu bridge. According to him, PW5 Satish Kumar, son of Rattan Chand, met him in Sandasu Bazaar. PW5, Satish Kumar, gave a different version. According to him, he along with PW3, Satish Kumar, complainant, Rattan Singh and one boy Bablu was coming back to home and when they reached near the house of Jinder Lal, accused persons came there and started giving bearings to PW3 Satish Kumar with a 'danda' and thereafter, PW4, Dalip Singh came to the spot and saved PW3. The version of PW5 is totally different to that of PW3 and PW4. The version of PW5 is totally different to that of PW3 and PW4. Whereas according to PW3, he met PW5 on the road head, according to PW4, they met PW5 in the bazaar, the version of PW5 is that he along with Rattan Singh and one boy Bablu was with the complainant when he was attacked. Neither Rattan Singh nor Bablu has been examined by the prosecution. Therefore, there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses with regard to the genesis of the incident. 7. The defence has examined DW1 ASI Tej Ram, who has proved the report, Ext. D1, which was lodged by the accused persons against the complainant with regard to very same incident. They have also examined DW2 Dr. Manoj Maitan, who has proved on record the MLCs, which are in the hand of Dr. Ritu. These MLCs are Exts. DA, DB and DC and relate to the examination of the accused Ashok Kumar, Asha Devi and Padam Singh. As far as Ashok Kumar is concerned, he had more than five injuries on his person, three injuries were found on the person of Asha Kumari and one injury on the person of Padam Singh. These injuries have also not been explained by the prosecution. 8. When there is a previous history of animosity between the parties, there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and the prosecution has failed to prove the injuries on some of the accused persons, then benefit of doubt will have to go to the accused. Once there is a serious doubt with regard to the veracity of the version of the prosecution as to what was the genesis of the occurrence, then the accused cannot be convicted. 9. In view of the matter, we are of the considered view, that the learned trial court was justified in acquitting the accused persons. Therefore, we find no ground to interfere in the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged.