Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1208 (PNJ)

Mohinder Pal v. Sohan Singh

2014-08-21

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2014
JUDGMENT Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) The contour of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that initially, in the wake of statement of petitioner complainant Mohinder Pal s/o Ramji Lal (for brevity “the complainant”), a criminal case was registered against Sohan Singh son of Bishan Singh & others (respondents No.1 to 3), vide FIR No.109 dated 18.7.2005 on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 452 and 506 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Barara, District Ambala. In pursuance of the trial, they were acquitted of the charges framed against them, through the medium of impugned judgment of acquittal dated 10.9.2012 by the trial Magistrate. 2. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner complainant preferred the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by way of impugned judgment of acquittal dated 26.10.2013 by the Appellate Court. 3. Sequelly, the petitioner complainant still did not feel satisfied 2 and preferred the present revision petition, to challenge the impugned judgments of acquittal, invoking the provisions of section 401 Cr.PC. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this respect. 5. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that although there was cogent & reliable evidence on record, but the Courts below committed a legal mistake to acquit the respondents accused, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 6. As is evident from the record, that having completed all the codal formalities, taking into consideration the unexplained, inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, previous enmity between the parties, the high improbability in the prosecution version, inherent contradictions/discrepancies, improvements in its evidence and totality of other facts & circumstances mentioned therein, the trial Court has correctly acquitted the accused respondents, by virtue of impugned judgment of acquittal dated 10.9.2012. 7. 7. Not only that, the appellate court has again reexamined and appreciated the evidence on record and negated the plea of the petitioner, by way of impugned judgment dated 26.10.2013, which, in substance, is as under : “Mahinder Pal, PW1, the complainant has deposed that on 17.7.2005, at about 5.30 PM, when he alongwith his wife was at home, accused Sohan Lal having Kassi and his sons namely Munish Kumar @ Manni having iron rod and Parvesh having hockey came there and abused them. He has further deposed that, accused Sohan Lal dealt a blow of Kassi on the left side of his head, whereas accused Parvesh gave a blow of hockey on his right shoulder. He has further deposed that accused Munish @ Manni gave a blow of saria/iron rod on his back. He has further deposed that his wife had fell on him to save him and they were rescued by Lachman and Sohan Lal from the clutches of accused. It is pertinent to mention here that though Mahinder Pal, PW1, the complainant has attributed a blow of Kassi on the left side of his head to accused Sohan Lal, but there is no corresponding injury as is evident from the perusal of MLR as Ex.PW2/A dated 17.7.2005 as Dr. Punit, PW2 who had medicolegally examined the complainant has opined the alleged injury suffered by complainant to be caused with a blunt weapon, whereas the Kassi is a sharp edged weapon. The learned counsel for the appellant has also failed to convince this court that why the weapons of offences were neither shown to the medical expert who had medico legally examined the injured, nor produced in the court when the evidence was led by the prosecution. It will not be out of place to mention here that, it is also evident from the perusal of testimony of Mahinder Pal, PW1, the complainant that there is an old enmity between the parties regarding drainage of water in the street. It will not be out of place to mention here that, it is also evident from the perusal of testimony of Mahinder Pal, PW1, the complainant that there is an old enmity between the parties regarding drainage of water in the street. Smt. Kanta, PW3 has deposed that at the time of alleged occurrence, when Laxman Dass and Sohan Lal had reached at the spot, accused on seeing them had run away along with their weapons; however, during cross examination, she has deposed that police officials had recovered Kassi and Saria (iron rod) from his children; meaning thereby had the weapons of offence been taken away by the accused, then question of recovering of the same from the children of complainant would not have been arisen. Hence, under these circumstances, the testimony of Kanta Devi PW3 cannot be believed. It is also held in Amrik Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 310 by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court that “where witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witness becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances, no conviction can be passed on the evidence on such witnesses”. It will also be apt to mention here that, the alleged eyewitness namely Laxman Dass was given up by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State being won over by the accused and another eyewitness namely Sohan Lal, PW4 did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Sohan Lal, PW4 has specifically deposed that no quarrel had taken place between the parties in his presence. He has specifically denied that accused Sohan Lal, Parvesh and Munish had caused injuries to Mahinder Pal and his wife with Lathi, Kassi, saria and Hockey. Ram Kumar, DW1 has deposed that he has been working on the boring machine of accused Munish Kumar and Parvesh Kumar since 1990. He has further deposed that on 17.7.2005, he alongwith Parvesh, Munish Kumar and Narata Ram had gone to village Majri in Uttrakhand for the purposes of boring in the fields of Dharam Pal Saini. Ram Kumar, DW1 has deposed that he has been working on the boring machine of accused Munish Kumar and Parvesh Kumar since 1990. He has further deposed that on 17.7.2005, he alongwith Parvesh, Munish Kumar and Narata Ram had gone to village Majri in Uttrakhand for the purposes of boring in the fields of Dharam Pal Saini. The testimony of Ram Kumar, DW1 has been supported and sustained by the testimony of Ritupal Saini, DW2 s/o Dharam Singh, who had deposed that on 9.7.2005, he had entered in agreement with Munish Kumar to bore in his fields for a sum or Rs. 2,25,000/and the work of boring was started by Munish Kumar on 12.7.2005. He has further deposed that due to some defect in the machine, Parvesh Kumar had come to village Majri (Uttrakhand) on 16.7.2005 for getting the same repaired and he remained there till the evening of 18.7.2005. During searching cross examination of witnesses examined in defence, nothing in favour of the prosecution could be elicited; hence, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that, the prosecution has been successful in proving that on 17.7.2005, accused had caused injuries to Mahinder Pal, PW1, the complainant and to his wife. It is also held in Keshardan Versus State of MP 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 180 by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court that “credence to the evidence of defence witnesses should be given in the same manner as it is being given to prosecution witnesses. Merely the defence has examined witnesses in order to prove that the appellant is innocent, testimony of those witnesses cannot be thrown like waste paper in the dust bin.”. No doubt, evidence has to be weighed and not counted as held in citations relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, but in the case in hand the testimony of Mahinder Pal, PW1 and Kanta Devi, PW3 does not inspire confidence in the mind of court regarding truthfulness of the prosecution version in view of glaring infirmities in evidence on record. ” 8. Meaning thereby, the courts below have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective and recorded the concurrent findings of fact that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution falls short as is required to prove a criminal charge and correctly acquitted the respondents accused in this context. ” 8. Meaning thereby, the courts below have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective and recorded the concurrent findings of fact that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution falls short as is required to prove a criminal charge and correctly acquitted the respondents accused in this context. Such impugned judgments of acquittal, containing valid reasons, cannot legally be interfered with in the exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, unless and until, the same are perverse or without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so the impugned judgments of acquittal deserve to be and are hereby maintained in obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. In the light of aforesaid reason, as there is no merit, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such.