Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 143 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Bishan Dass

2013-03-01

R.B.MISRA, SURINDER SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J The respondents were charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Kangra on 27.11.2009 in RBT SC No.44-P/VII/06/05 S.T. No.21/2009, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, for allegedly forming an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object, they entered in the courtyard of the complainant PW1 Ajay Kumar on 1.7.2004 around 10 p.m. The accused- respondents Bishan Dass and Kanta Devi at that time were allegedly having darats (sickles) in their hands, whereas other respondents were having Dandas and attacked Ajay Kumar complainant and his mother Raksha Devi thereby causing injuries on the various parts of their body. On hearing commotion, PW4 Rajinder Kumar, Hoshiar Singh and Gian Chand, father of the complainant, reached the spot. The injured were removed to PHC Panchrukhi and information of the incident was given to the police. 2. As per the prosecution case, police recorded the statement of Ajay Kumar under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of which formal FIR Ext.PW10/C was registered. During investigation, police visited the spot, prepared site plan of the place of alleged incident and also recorded the statements of witnesses including injured. The injured were taken for medical examination. PW11 Dr. Anupama Singh had medically examined Raksha and Ajay Kumar and issued Medico Legal Certificates with respect to the injuries noticed on their person and were also sent for X-ray examination, but none of them had sustained fracture. The injuries on the above persons were found to be of the simple in nature, but it was opined that it could be possible with sickles Ext.P14 and P16 and were caused on the vital parts of the body. 3. Accused-respondents had also lodged a complaint against the complainant party. They were too medically examined, but on the conclusion of the investigation, police concluded that the respondents were the aggressor, as such, no action was taken on their complaint, however, challan was presented against the respondents on the alleged FIR of Ajay Kumar (PW1). 4. The respondents had denied the charges framed against them under the aforesaid Sections and claimed trial. 5. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses. Accused persons were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The respondents had denied the charges framed against them under the aforesaid Sections and claimed trial. 5. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses. Accused persons were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to them, they were falsely implicated in this case and asserted that it was the complainant party, who were aggressors and gave beatings to them. They produced Bishan Dass in defence and five Medico Legal Certificates Exts.D1 to D5, whereby some injuries were shown having been caused to the respondents in the same incident. 6. At the end of trial, learned trial Court on the basis of material contradictions appearing in the evidence of the prosecution case and also taking note of unexplained injuries on the persons of the respondents came to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as such, respondents were acquitted, hence the present appeal by the State. 7. We have heard Shri M.A. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General. He submitted that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective and had attached too much importance to the minor contradictions which has resulted into wrong findings. 8. Contra, S/Shri Bhuvnesh Sharma, Ramakant Sharma and Man Singh, learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the judgment of acquittal submitted that it was not within the ambit and powers of the Investigating Officer to decide as to who were aggressors in the incident, more specifically when the respondents had also lodged the FIR against the complainant party. Police should have investigated both the complaints together and presented the challan in the Court simultaneously for the decision of the case to find out who were the aggressors. Learned counsel have also brought our attention to the complaint Ext.PW6/B (Mark-A) lodged by Bishan Dass respondent against the complainant party whereby he had alleged that the complainant Ajay Kumar had been passing uncalled for remarks/ taunting against his daughter and on coming to know about this fact, he enquired about the said incident when he met him outside the compound of the complainant while standing on the road, but Ajay Kumar got infuriated and started beating him. Even his father reached on the spot and both of them gave thrashing to him badly. He raised hue and cry. Even his father reached on the spot and both of them gave thrashing to him badly. He raised hue and cry. On this, other respondents came on the spot, even they were also given beatings. Police also got them medically examined, but unfortunately, no further investigation was taken into the allegation made by them with respect to the incident. 9. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have meticulously examined the record. 10. The defence raised by the respondents has probablised their version. The complaint of Bishan Dass respondent was admitted having been lodged against the complainant by the Investigating Officer, even he admits that the respondents were got medically examined and for that matter, their Medico Legal Certificates are Ext.D1 to D5 which have also not been disputed at all. Complainant Ajay Kumar in his earlier version made vide Ext.PW2/A to the police did not make any mention about the injuries caused to him or any of the members of his family. The Investigating Officer PW10 Shri Tilak Raj clearly also admits this fact in his cross-examination. He further admitted that in the earlier statement of Ajay Kumar he had mentioned name of Pawan, Ajeet and Archana, having Dandas in their hands, but in the subsequent statement, he stated that they were not having Dandas. It has also come during investigation to his notice that the cause of the dispute was that the accused persons were saying that Raksha Devi and her family members used to pass taunting and indecent remarks with respect to the family members of the respondents, but he denied that during investigation it has come to the notice on 1.7.2004 Kamlesh, son of Raksha, Bablu and Madan Lal had wrongly restrained Kanta Devi and outraged her modesty and in this regard a criminal case is pending against them in Palampur Court. He has admitted that in the spot map, he has shown the occurrence to have taken place at the edge of the road and not in the compound. 11. We have also noticed the statement of PW11 Dr. Anupama Singh wherein she stated that she had medically examined the respondents and confirms that they were having injuries and duration of such injuries was within 12 hours. 11. We have also noticed the statement of PW11 Dr. Anupama Singh wherein she stated that she had medically examined the respondents and confirms that they were having injuries and duration of such injuries was within 12 hours. She also proved the authenticity of the Medico Legal Certificates Ext.D1 to D5 having been prepared by her and further stated that she had examined them on the request of the police. It stands established that the respondents had sustained the injuries, whereas, Raksha Devi in her statement wrongly stated that they were not having the injuries and not explained as to now the accused persons sustained the injuries. 12. PW4 Rajinder Kumar had tried to substantiate the version given by the complainant. However, in cross-examination, he also stated that he did not see any injury on the person of the accused persons. He also did not know that the complainant party had given beatings to the respondents due to which these injuries were caused to them and was unaware of the cause of dispute. Pertinently, he says that he was not having cordial relations with the respondents- party which means that the alleged eye witness had given a lopsided version of the alleged occurrence and he being an interested person to support the complainant party and very conveniently ignored to depose truth before the Court. In order words, the complainant as well as the alleged eye witness had not spoken the whole truth whereas it had kept something hidden like an iceberg. The respondents have been able to probablise their defence, non-explanation of the injuries on their person though simple in nature against the above background and also the prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, in our considered opinion make us to conclude that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are born out from the evidence on record and we find no reason to come to a different conclusion, as such, the appeal is devoid of any merit, hence the State appeal is dismissed. 13. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of this case. 14. Send down the record.