Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1450 (PNJ)

Kamal Kumar Yadav v. State of Punjab

2014-10-27

MUTTACI JEYAPAUL, SNEH PRASHAR

body2014
Sneh Prashar, J. 1. This was an appeal preferred by Kamal Kumar Yadav son of Yudhvanshi Yadav, resident of Dharampura, complainant-appellant, assailing the judgment dated 10.05.2013 recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, acquitting Mahinder Yadav and others (respondents No. 2 to 5) in the criminal case bearing F.I.R. No. 4 dated 05.01.2006 under Sections 459/380/506/341 I.P.C. of Police Station Sadar Khanna, Ludhiana, registered on his (appellant's) complaint made before ASI Mahabir Singh. Precisely, the story of the complainant was that on 05.01.2006 in the night at 1:30 A.M., 8-9 persons among whom one was a Sikh fellow and the others were clean shaven and were carrying handpump handles and 'Daangs' and had muffled their faces, had trespassed into his house and besides committing theft of valuables i.e. gold ornaments and cash ` 2,000/- had inflicted injuries on his arms and legs. The complainant added that his father Yudhvanshi Yadav and brother Ravi Shanker were away to their native village in U.P. His mother and sister, who were present in the house, were sleeping in another room and when they woke up hearing his alarm and came out, they were encircled by the assailants and were threatened of being killed. Hearing their shouts, his neighbour Sarup Singh came in the street in front of their house and raised alarm on which the assailants fled away and while leaving they snatched the red shawl of his mother and also caused injury to Sarup Singh. 2. The respondents after their arrest and on being challaned were charge-sheeted under Sections 459, 380, 506 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and were subjected to trial. 3. The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses, after which statement of the respondents under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The respondents pleaded that they had been falsely implicated and simultaneously disclosed that Savita daughter of Piare Lal (respondent-accused No. 4) was married to complainant Kamal Kumar Yadav. Since the day of marriage, a matrimonial dispute was going on between them because of which she was residing with her parents. On 27.12.2005, complainant Kamal Kumar Yadav and his relatives had forcibly taken Savita with them and had thrown her out of the car near Shiv Mandir, Sabrahak. A criminal case in respect of the occurrence was registered at Police Station Shahganj. On 27.12.2005, complainant Kamal Kumar Yadav and his relatives had forcibly taken Savita with them and had thrown her out of the car near Shiv Mandir, Sabrahak. A criminal case in respect of the occurrence was registered at Police Station Shahganj. As a counter blast to the said case Kamal Kumar Yadav falsely implicated them in the instant case. 4. Considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned trial Court acquitted the respondents of the charges levelled against them as indicated above. 5. Heard the submissions made by Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the appellant. 6. To begin with, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the complainant had led substantive, reliable and ample evidence to substantiate the allegations against the respondents, whereas learned trial Court recorded erroneous judgment of acquittal based on conjectures and surmises. Complainant Kamal Kumar Yadav during his deposition had reiterated the allegations contained in the First Information Report and had identified the accused facing trial being the assailants. His statement was corroborated by his mother PW 2 Smt. Prabhawati who was a witness to the occurrence and was also supported by his father PW 8 Yudhvanshi Yadav who had seen the accused at the Railway Station in the early hours on 05.01.2006 immediately after the occurrence. The police officials examined by the prosecution proved the investigations conducted, during which broken locks of the gate of the house of the complainant were taken in possession from the spot vide memo Ex. PBP and the railway tickets Ex. P1 to Ex. P3 of Yudhvanshi Yadav, his son and one more person were handed over to the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel contended that there being sufficient evidence for conviction of the respondents, the appeal be admitted/accepted and the respondents be convicted and sentenced. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record, we are of the considered opinion that there is no ground to admit the appeal and also no scope to interfere in the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record, we are of the considered opinion that there is no ground to admit the appeal and also no scope to interfere in the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court. Although in the First Information Report, complainant Kamal Kumar Yadav had got recorded that 8-9 persons with muffled faces had trespassed into his house, caused injuries to him and fled away with valuable articles and cash amount etc., but it came out to be an admitted fact that he was married to Savita daughter of Piare Lal (respondent-accused No. 4) and the other four respondents who were implicated as accused were near relatives of Shri Piare Lal. It appears strange that the complainant was unable to identify his own father-in-law and his relatives during the occurrence. His story was that the assailants threw torch light on his face and woke him up and the Sikh fellow among them demanded from him whatever he had and threatened him of being killed, but he gathered courage and switched on the light of the room and raised shouts. Meaning thereby that there was ample opportunity and light for him to see and hear the voice of assailants. It was also his version that his mother and sister, who were sleeping in the adjoining room were attracted by his shouts. Surprisingly, the mother and sister were also not able to identify any of the assailants. 8. On the contrary, during evidence PW 1 complainant Kamal Kumar Yadav, his mother PW 2 Smt. Prabhawati Devi identified the accused and pin pointed them by name and stated the role attributed to each of them. It shows how cleverly the complainant tried to fabricate the events. 9. It is further important to note that as incorporated in the First Information Report Ex. PBO on receipt of an information ASI Mahabir Singh had met complainant Kamal Kumar Yadav at Khanna Nursing Home, where he was admitted allegedly with injuries on his person and the ASI had recorded his statement which formed the basis of First Information Report. 10. It is further important to note that as incorporated in the First Information Report Ex. PBO on receipt of an information ASI Mahabir Singh had met complainant Kamal Kumar Yadav at Khanna Nursing Home, where he was admitted allegedly with injuries on his person and the ASI had recorded his statement which formed the basis of First Information Report. 10. Controverting the above story PW 8 Yudhvanshi Yadav, father of the complainant when stepped into the witness box, deposed that on 05.01.2006 at bout 6 AM after he saw the accused at the Railway Station boarding the train from which he had alighted, he reached home and found a gathering at his house which included a Senior Superintendent of Police and other police officials. He entered the house and saw his son Kamal Kumar Yadav lying on the floor in an injured condition and in a pool of blood. Handle of a hand-pump and an iron rod were lying near him. 11. Thus, according to PW 8 Yudhvanshi Yadav, his son, who had suffered injuries, was still at home when he reached his house on 05.01.2006. Since, as per his statement he had reached the Railway Station at 6 AM, it is obvious that he reached his house later than that. It was not the statement of complainant Kamal Kumar Yadav that his father had reached home before he was brought to the hospital. Also, his statement could not have been recorded in the Nursing Home when the police had reached the spot before could be shifted to the Nursing Home. 12. More so, it was recorded in the medico legal report Ex. PW 10/C of complainant Kamal Kumar Yadav that he had arrived in the hospital at 2 AM on 05.01.2006 whereas his father PW 8 stated that he was still at house when he reached his house i.e. After 6 A.M. on 05.01.2006. This was another factum which outrightly falsified the version of PW 8 Yudhvanshi Yadav and also rendered the statement of complainant doubtful. 13. There are yet other strong infirmities in the case of the complainant. In the First Information Report, he stated that the assailants committed theft of gold ornaments and cash ` 2,000/- from an iron box (Trunk) lying in the room in which his mother and sister were sleeping. 13. There are yet other strong infirmities in the case of the complainant. In the First Information Report, he stated that the assailants committed theft of gold ornaments and cash ` 2,000/- from an iron box (Trunk) lying in the room in which his mother and sister were sleeping. He stated that the accused after taking the key opened the box and took out the gold ornaments and cash amount from the same. On the other hand, PW 2 Prabhawati Devi, mother of PW 1 complainant, stated that accused Sewak, respondent No. 5 placing a pistol on her temple threatened and demanded the key of the box (Peti) from her and also demanded money relating to the sale price of the plot sold by her and gave her beatings. When according to the complainant he was sleeping in a separate room from that of his mother and sister and he did not state that the assailants allowed him to go out of that room, it remains quizzical how he came to know that the assailants had taken away a gold chain, two gold bangles, gold nose pin and cash ` 2,000/- out of the iron box lying in the room of his mother and sister. It is an admitted fact that nothing was recovered from any of the accused. Apparently, it was all a cooked up story which had no base to stand on. 14. The doctor who medico legally examined the complainant was not produced by the prosecution during the trial. Sarup Singh, the neighbour of the complainant, who had come out of his house and had raised shouts, which shows that he could see what was happening in the house of the complainant, was not examined for the reasons best known to the complainant. He was an independent witness and was very material in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. His absence leaves a dent irreparable . 15. As already observed above, the complainant did not name any of the assailants while lodging the First Information Report though it is an admitted fact that the respondents being his in-laws family were closely related to him. He admitted in his statement that he was not having cordial relations with his wife and that at the instance of his wife a criminal case relating to dowry articles had been registered against him, his parents and relatives. He admitted in his statement that he was not having cordial relations with his wife and that at the instance of his wife a criminal case relating to dowry articles had been registered against him, his parents and relatives. His admission clearly indicates that he got the instant case registered by intentionally concealing material facts. Neither he nor his mother and father, who were the only other witnesses, are found to be reliable persons. Thus, finding no perversity or infirmity in the judgment passed by learned trial Court and there being no merit in the appeal, it is hereby dismissed.