Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1327 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajpal Singh

2016-07-11

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present appeal is maintained by the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of acquittal of the accused in a case under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. III, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P, dated 1.3.2008, in Criminal Case No.19-II of 2006. 2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 22.12.2005, complainant Khem Chand made a statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C to HC Pardeep Kumar, vide report No.14 of Roznamcha, wherein he stated that he is a transporter and has also contested election for Pardhan, but he was defeated. On 20.12.2005 at about 5:00 pm, when the complainant was in his house, children told him that Sunil Kumar, Hem Raj and Sarup are quarrelling. Complainant went to the spot to separate them. Accused was also there and when he tried to save Sunil Kumar, accused pushed Sunil Kumar and the complainant due to which he fell down on the ground whereas Sunil Kumar fell on the stairs of the house of Sarup. The occurrence has been witnessed by Parven Kumar. When he was taken to hospital at Tauni Devi, the complainant told that he fell down from the ‘danga’. He came to know through newspaper that Suresha Kumari, reported the matter to the police against him, on which he had also lodged the report. After completion of the investigation the challan was presented in the Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 07 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein the accused denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. No defence evidence was led by the accused. 4. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State and learned defence counsel for the respondent/accused. 5. To appreciate the arguments of learned Additional Advocate General and learned defence counsel, this Court has gone through the record in detail and minutely scrutinized the statements of the witnesses. 6. PW-1 complainant Khem Chand, has deposed that while Hem Raj, Sarup and Sunil Kumar were quarreling, he went to the spot and he was pushed by the accused. He fell down and got injured in the waist. While he was under treatment he read in newspaper that a case has been registered against him. 6. PW-1 complainant Khem Chand, has deposed that while Hem Raj, Sarup and Sunil Kumar were quarreling, he went to the spot and he was pushed by the accused. He fell down and got injured in the waist. While he was under treatment he read in newspaper that a case has been registered against him. Complainant lodged report and as per medical examination, one bone of his was found to be fractured. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had given a statement to the Medical Officer at Tauni Devi that he has fallen down from the ‘danga’. He denied that he alongwith others had administered beatings to Suresha Devi and Ram Swaroop. He cannot say as to how Suresha Devi was injured. 7. PW-2 Sunil Kumar has deposed that accused had pushed the complainant and him as accused was drunk. Hem Raj called them to the house of Suresha Devi and when they reached there they were pushed. In his cross-examination, he denied that he alongwith Khem Chand had revealed to the Medical Officer at Tauni Devi that they have fallen down on their own. He denied that they were badly drunk and fell down on their own. He has denied that a false case has been prepared by Khem Chand, as he has lost the election. 8. PW-3 Dr. D.R. Sharma, has examined the complainant and issued MLC Ex.PW3/A. He opined that injury to be grievous as “compression of L2 vertibra” was found. He has admitted that injury is possible by accidental fall. 9. PW-4 Dr. D.B. Kulkarni, gave report Ex.PW4/A, x-ray films Ex.PW4-B and Ex.PW4/C of the complainant observing compression. PW-7 Mohinder Pal, lodged FIR Ex.PW7/A, after medical report was received. PW-5 Parveen Kumar, has pleaded ignorance about the occurrence. In his cross-examination, he has denied that accused had pushed Sunil Kumar and Khem Chand, as a result of which they got injured. He has also admitted that complainant Khem Chand is his uncle. He had not given any statement to the police and the police had recorded the statement as given by the complainant. 10. PW-6 HC Pardeep Kumar, Investigating Officer of the case and deposed that the complainant had got his statement Ex.PW1/A recorded with him. MLC Ex.PW3/A was issued after he had moved an application Ex.PW6/A. The investigation was conducted on 14.1.2006 and spot map Ex.PW6/B was prepared. 10. PW-6 HC Pardeep Kumar, Investigating Officer of the case and deposed that the complainant had got his statement Ex.PW1/A recorded with him. MLC Ex.PW3/A was issued after he had moved an application Ex.PW6/A. The investigation was conducted on 14.1.2006 and spot map Ex.PW6/B was prepared. In his cross-examination, he admitted that complainant has revealed that he fell down from the ‘danga’ and got injured. 11. Dr. D.R. Sharma, has not ruled out the possibility of sustaining injuries by accidental fall whereas PW-5 Parveen Kumar has admitted his relationship with complainant, has not supported the prosecution story. 12. After going through the aforesaid discussion, it comes out that the version of the complainant is full of contradictions and the other eye witness i.e. PW-2 has differentiated himself on vital aspects coupled with the fact that PW-5 is related to the complainant has not supported the complainant’s version. Thus, the delay in lodging FIR as also the contradictions makes out a case where it can be said that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 13. It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 , that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 , has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 15. So, in my considered view the prosecution story is uncorroborated by witnesses and taking into consideration the evidence which has come on record this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused conclusively and beyond reasonable doubt. 16. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and discussion made above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds of accused are discharged.