Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 966 (HP)

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. KISHAN SINGH

2013-11-19

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J- 1. ASSAILING the judgment dated 12.01.2006, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. in Cr. Case No. 28/2 of 2002/01, titled State of H.P. Versus Kishan Singh and others, whereby respondents-accused stand acquitted, the State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. IT is the case of prosecution that complainant Sucha Singh, who is a resident of village Nariwala had rented accommodation of one Smt. Janki Devi. Complainant's daughter Smt. Soni Devi was kidnapped by one Shri Hem Raj. Complainant searched for her, brought her back and got her married to a person outside the village on 25.4.2001. As such, residents of village Nariwala nursed a grudge against him. On 27.4.2001 at about 9.45 p.m., while the complainant was sitting with his family members in his house, in the presence of other occupants of the building, accused Kishan Lal, Jai Prakash, Hem Raj, Poma and Prem trespassed and gave him beatings with a stick. Accused Jai Prakash also outraged the modesty of Smt. Janki Devi. Smt. Gurmeet Kumar, wife of the complainant, came to their rescue. Complainant informed the police, who rushed to the spot, where his statement (Ex. PA) under Section 154 of Cr.P.C was recorded, on the basis of which, FIR No. 165/2001 dated 27.4.2001 (Ex. PW-11/D) was recorded at Police Station, Paonta Sahib. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. Accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 451, 354, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. IN order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and statements of the accused person under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure also recorded. They pleaded false implication. In defence, accused examined two witnesses. 4. TRIAL Court acquitted all the accused persons in relation to all the charged offences. Hence, the present appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record, I am of the considered view that no case for interference is made out in the present appeal. 5. They pleaded false implication. In defence, accused examined two witnesses. 4. TRIAL Court acquitted all the accused persons in relation to all the charged offences. Hence, the present appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record, I am of the considered view that no case for interference is made out in the present appeal. 5. IT has come on record through the testimony of Gurmeet Kaur that relations between the two parties i.e. the complainant group and the accused were not cordial, but in fact hostile. It is in these circumstances, testimonies of prosecution witnesses stand appreciated and examined by the trial Court. Trial Court, in my considered view, rightly held that contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses, being major, renders their statements to be unbelievable. 6. TESTIMONIES of relevant prosecution witnesses namely Sh. Sucha Singh (PW-1), Smt. Gurmeet Kaur (PW-2) and Smt. Janki Devi (PW-3) do not inspire confidence. To begin with, there are material contradictions in their statements. There are also major improvements. Now in the FIR (Ex. PW-11/D) there is no reference that Gurmeet Kaur was given blow of knife by the accused persons, in fact this is not the case of the prosecution either. But in Court, Sucha Singh and Gurmeet Kaur stated so. Medical report also does not corroborate this fact. 7. ACCORDING to the prosecution, alleged crime took place inside the room at the time when Janki Devi and Jethu were present but then Gurmeet Kaur states that fight took place in the Courtyard. The contradiction in the backdrop is material. Also no independent witnesses of the locality stand examined. 8. COMPLAINANT states that fight took place for 15-20 minutes, whereas Janki Devi states that fight went on for 3-4 hours. Jethu on the other hand states that they were assaulted for more than one hour. Now significantly, none of the villagers has supported the prosecution. Complaint with regard to outraging of modesty was lodged 13 days after the incident. Why is it that the victim kept quiet all along has not been explained by the prosecution. Further there is no cogent, clear and convincing evidence with regard to the allegations of outraging the modesty of the victim. 9. Complaint with regard to outraging of modesty was lodged 13 days after the incident. Why is it that the victim kept quiet all along has not been explained by the prosecution. Further there is no cogent, clear and convincing evidence with regard to the allegations of outraging the modesty of the victim. 9. NO doubt, prosecution has been able to establish the injuries sustained by the complainant-party, but then this fact alone would not conclusively establish the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. 10. SH. Jethu Ram (PW-4) and Sh. Munshi Ram (PW-5) also do not state in Court that they sustained injuries on account of alleged assault of the accused persons. Having perused the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on record, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material on record. 11. THE accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. 12. AS such, the present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.