Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 62 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Het Ram

2015-01-09

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed by the State against the impugned judgment rendered on 26.8.2008 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No.55/2007 whereby the learned trial Court the offences under Sections 307, 341, 323 and 506 of the IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that Ram Kishan, President Gram Panchayat, Dadaur recorded a statement under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. before the SI/SHO Om Prakash at Kansha Chowk to the effect that on 24.6.2006 at about 6 p.m. he and Param Dev, Vice President, Gram panchayat, Dadaur were present at Kancha Chowk and at the same time Jagat Ram s/o Dida Ram came from the side of his house. In their presence accused Dida Ram and Het Ram alias Sanjay father and brother of Sh. Jagat Ram had stopped him and thereafter they started giving beating to him. The wife of accused Het Ram alias Sanjay and sister Indira Devi were also with the above referred accused and they also gave leg fist blows to Sh. Jagat Ram. Thereafter, the accused Het Ram alias Sanjay suddenly picked up a stone and gave stone blow on the head of Jagat Ram as a result of which he got grievous injuries on his head and ear and blood started oozing out from the injuries. Sh. Jagat Ram then became unconscious. The accused were further saying that Jagat Ram has defamed them, as such, he shall be killed. On their raising an alarm, all injured to Civil Hospital, Ratti for medical treatment and informed the police through telephone. On the basis of aforesaid statement an FIR was registered against the accused in the police station, Balh and the investigation was carried out. During the course of investigation , the police visited the spot, prepared the site plan, took into possession brick and procured the MLC of the injured and also obtained the opinion of the doctor qua the injuries sustained by the injured as also arrested the accused. 3. On completion of the investigation, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and filed in the Court. 4. 3. On completion of the investigation, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and filed in the Court. 4. The accused were charged for theirs having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 323 and 506 of the IPC by the learned trial Court, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded in which they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication trial Court returned findings of acquittal against the accused. 6. The State of H.P., is, aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court in favour of the accused/respondents. Mr. P.M. Negi, the learned Deputy Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended, that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court below are not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record rather, they are sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of the material evidence on record. Hence, he, contends that the findings of acquittal be reversed by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and be replaced by findings of conviction and concomitantly, an appropriate sentence be imposed upon the accused/respondents. 7. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has with considerable force and vigour contended that the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below are based on a mature and balanced appreciation of the evidence on record and do not necessitate interference, rather merit vindication counsel on either side, has with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The injured/victim of the offences allegedly attributed to the accused is Jagat Ram, PW-3. A complaint qua the incident was lodged by PW-2. The complaint is comprised in Ex.PW2/A. PW-1 subjected the injured/victim to medical examination and during the course of the recording of his deposition in Court, proved MLC Ex.PW1/A. He has deposed in Court that on examination of the injured/victim PW-3, he had observed the existence of lacerated wound over left parietal area with irregular margins with fresh bleeding about 2x1.5 inch in size Tenderness around the wound was present and also the existence of contused lacerated wound over forehead left side present with irregular margins 2.5 X1 inch in size. There also exists an admission in his deposition that the injuries observed by him on the person of PW-3 during the course of his examining the latter may owe their existence to fall on hard surface. He has also deposed in Court that both the injuries reflected in MLC Ex.PW1/A are not dangerous to the life of the injured/victim. A revelation in the deposition of PW-1 of the attribution of culpability is fastened by eye witnesses PW-2 and PW-4 to the accused, possibly owning their existence to a fall on hard surface does goad this Court to, in tandem with the aforesaid possibility of injuries noticed by PW-1 on the person of the injured owing their existence to fall on hard surface tentatively conclude that the injuries allegedly sustained by the victim/injured PW-3 are attributable to his falling on a hard surface. However, the tentative conclusion of the aforesaid injuries sustained by PW-3 being attributable to the latter falling on hard surface would rather attain formidability and tenacity only in the event of this Court on an incisive and circumspect reading of the testimonies of PW-2, the complainant, PW-3, the injured/victim and PW-4 also an eye witness to the occurrence, for unearthing the existence of any contradictions, improvements and embellishments over and upon their previous statements recorded in writing or contradictions inter se their respective testimonies existing in their respective examinations-in-chief and cross-examinations, besides existence of intra se contradictions in their respective testimonies recorded in Court comes to, hence, disinter scores aforesaid. However, in the event of their testimonies being bereft of any contradictions and improvements over their previous testimonies recorded in writing as also theirs being bereft of any inter se contradictions vis-à-vis in their depositions comprised in their respective examinations-in-chief and cross-examinations, as also for want of any intra se contradictions inter se their respective testimonies would then constrain this Court to impute credibility to their respective testimonies qua the genesis of occurrence. 10. For rendering a finding qua hence whether PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 have deposed in harmony, hence, corroborated their respective depositions or not, it is apt at this stage to advert to the testimonies of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. 11. 10. For rendering a finding qua hence whether PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 have deposed in harmony, hence, corroborated their respective depositions or not, it is apt at this stage to advert to the testimonies of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. 11. Initially this Court proceeds to test the veracity of the testimony of PW-2, who recorded complaint Ex.PW2/A. In his version qua the incident comprised in Ex.PW2/A, he has deposed that he had witnessed all the accused to be delivering fist blows on the person of the injured/victim Jagat Ram. He has attributed to accused Het Ram alias Sanjay the role of his having picked upon a stone and pelted it on the head of Jagat and consequent oozing of blood therefrom. However, during the course of the recording of his deposition in Court, he in his examination-in-chief has deposed that all the accused inflicted injuries upon Jagat Ram, PW-3 with stones and bricks. Obviously a rife contradiction emerges qua the genesis of the incident recorded in Ex.PW2/A, inasmuch as therein he attributes to all the accused the role of theirs having delivered fist blows upon PW-3 Jagat Ram and of only Het Ram alias Sanjay having pelted a stone at the head of Jagat Ram, the victim/injured, whereas in his deposition comprised in his examination-in-Chief he attributes to all the accused the purported inculpatory role of theirs hurling both stones and bricks at the victim/injured PW-3 Jagat Ram. The contradiction aforesaid renders his version qua the incident to be robbed of its veracity. The further contradiction vis-à-vis the version qua the incident comprised in Ex.PW2/A and which sequelly erodes the veracity of the genesis of the prosecution version, emerges from the factum of his proceeding to depose in his examination-in-chief of all the accused besides having used stones, bricks and fist blows to inflict injuries upon the “dandas” to perpetrate the assault on the person of the injured/victim. Moreover, in his cross-examination, he deposes that a pool of blood had accumulated on the spot, besides he deposes that bricks lying on the spot were smeared with blood. Moreover, in his cross-examination, he deposes that a pool of blood had accumulated on the spot, besides he deposes that bricks lying on the spot were smeared with blood. The relevance and probative worth of recovery of brick, Ex.P-1 which, however, does not bear any stain of blood assumes significance, especially when in the face of its being un-smeared with blood, hence, mobilizes an inference that it was not used in the perpetration of assault by the accused on the person of the victim/injured. The said inference for reiteration attains momentum and tenacity in the face of PW-4, the witness of recovery having deposed that brick Ex.P-1 was taken into possession from the spot. The factum of its recovery having been, hence, not effectuated in the legally efficacious manner, inasmuch as it not having been effected at the instance of the accused renders hence its recovery to be neither gathering nor mobilizing any probative worth. Consequently, given the rife contradictions aforesaid existing in the testimony of the complainant with the sequeling effect of such contradictions eroding the veracity of the prosecution efficacious recovery of Ex.P-1, brick purportedly used by the accused to deliver a blow on the head of the victim/injured construed in conjunction with the factum that it does not bear or is not smeared with blood, though PW-2 in his cross-examination has deposed that a pool of blood as had oozed out from the injuries purportedly inflicted on the person of the injured/victim had accumulated or was found on the spot, too renders the purported weapon of offence brick Ex.P-1 to be an invention or concoction. In aftermath, it can also be concluded that hence the deposition of PW-1 of the injuries noticed by him to be existing on the person of PW-3 owing their existence to a fall on hard surface may gather an aura of truth. If the above deduction is arriveable then reiteratedly as a natural corollary, it can be held that the injuries as existed on the person of PW-3 may owe their existence to his falling on hard surface. Naturally then, no incriminatory role can be attributed to the accused of theirs having caused injuries on the person of the victim/injured. 12. If the above deduction is arriveable then reiteratedly as a natural corollary, it can be held that the injuries as existed on the person of PW-3 may owe their existence to his falling on hard surface. Naturally then, no incriminatory role can be attributed to the accused of theirs having caused injuries on the person of the victim/injured. 12. Apart therefrom, the injured/victim while deposing as PW-3 has in his deposition comprised in his examination-in-occurrence as propounded by PW-2 in his complaint Ex.PW2/A, inasmuch as in Ex.PW2/A, the complainant therein attributes to all the accused an incriminatory role of theirs having delivered fist blow to PW-3 and of accused Het Ram having pelted stone on the head of the injured/victim sequelling injuries on the head of the latter, whereas PW-3 in contradiction thereto has attributed to all the accused the role of theirs having pelted bricks and stones on the head of the victim/injured besides with his having been contradicted the genesis of the occurrence comprised in Ex.PW2/A, he has also indulged in an improvement or embellishment upon his previous statement recorded in writing which factum emanates from a reading of his examination-in-chief wherein he has attributed to all the accused the role of theirs hurling bricks and stones on the head of PW-3 which factum when omitted to be recorded by him in his previous statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. constitutes it to be, as such, an embellishment and an improvement. Therefore, when PW-3 has deposed an improved and embellished version over his previous statement recorded in writing as such it erodes the truth of his testimony contradictions referred to hereinabove render the prosecution version qua the incident to be not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 13. Even otherwise, the factum of brick Ex.P-1 cannot be concluded to be either lifted or hurled by accused Sanjay Kumar alias Het Ram on the head of PW-3, in the face of the reasons assigned hereinabove unfolding its recovery having been concluded to have not been effected in the legally efficacious manner, rather the factum of PW-2 in Ex.PW2/A having unraveled therein of accused Het Ram alias Sanjay Kumar having picked up a stone rather purportedly constituted the latter to be a weapon of offence, which however has remained un-recovered. The contradistinction inter se the weapon of offence attributed by PW-2 in Ex.PW2/A to be used by accused Het Ram alias Sanjay Kumar and ultimately Ex. P-1 brick having come to be recovered from the site of occurrence and that too in a legally inefficacious manner wholly permeates the factum of its user as well as its recovery to be imbued with falsity as well as prevarication. corroboration to the deposition of PW-2, who recorded the complaint qua the incident comprised in Ex.PW1/A, inasmuch as in his deposition comprised in his examination-in-chief he has with specificity attributed to each of the accused the role of theirs handling respectively brick, stone and danda which attribution with specificity of handling of each of the aforesaid weapons of offence by each of aforesaid has not occurred in the deposition of PW-2. Naturally then the attribution with specificity in the deposition of PW-4 of each of the accused handling respective weapons of offence and lack of such attribution by PW-2 with specificity of handling by each of accused of such respective weapons of offence constitutes a rife and open contradictions intra se testimonies of PW-2 and PW-4 sequeling an inference that PW-4 was not an eye witness to the occurrence, consequently his testimony too does not acquire credibility. 15. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court below has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of the evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record. 16. Hence, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court is affirmed and maintained. Records be sent back.