Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1333 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Suresh Mehta

2016-07-11

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the impugned judgment rendered on 28.2.2008 by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 54-S/10 of 2007, whereby the learned appellate Court while reversing the findings of conviction recorded on 31.10.2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Theog, District Shimla, H.P., in case No. 322-1 of 2006 acquitted the respondent (for short ‘accused’) for the offences charged. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 1.9.2006 the complainant along with Virender Singh came to the police Post, Deha at about 11.30 a.m. and had reported that he along with Ram Lal had come to the shop of one Bihari at about 11.00 a.m. It is further averred that the accused was also sitting inside the shop. On seeing the complainant the accused started abusing him. The accused has threatened him that earlier also he had taught him a lesson and now he will not leave him. It is also averred that the accused had also threatened him to do away with his life. On being objected to such acts, the accused picked up a glass kept on the table and had thrown the same on him. The glass had struck against his arm owing to which he had received injuries on his arm. It is averred that thereafter the accused caught hold of the complainant from his neck and gave beatings to him. The accused had also pushed him on account of which he had struck against the glass of the counter. The complainant was saved from the clutches of the accused by S/Sh. Ram Lal, Keshav Ram and Mohan Lal etc. The shirt of the complainant was also torn by the accused. On such statement rapat No.4 was recorded, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW-4/A came to be registered. During investigation, the complainant was got medically examined at PHC Ghorana. His MLC Ex. PW-6/A was obtained. Spot map Ex.PW-4/B was prepared. The broken pieces of glass of counter was taken into possession along with T shirt vide seizure memo. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused challan was prepared and filed in the Court. 3. Spot map Ex.PW-4/B was prepared. The broken pieces of glass of counter was taken into possession along with T shirt vide seizure memo. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused challan was prepared and filed in the Court. 3. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which he pleaded innocence. He did not choose to lead any evidence in defence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of conviction against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. However, in an appeal preferred there from by the accused before the learned appellate Court, the latter Court while reversing the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court acquitted the accused. 6. The learned Deputy Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Appellate Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, theirs standing se-quelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/accused has with considerable force and vigor contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Appellate Court standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side has with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The learned Deputy Advocate General contends of with the deposition of PW-6 (Dr. Abhishek Sharma) unveiling the factum of the injuries depicted in MLC Ex. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side has with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The learned Deputy Advocate General contends of with the deposition of PW-6 (Dr. Abhishek Sharma) unveiling the factum of the injuries depicted in MLC Ex. PW-6/A being se-quellable by the complainant standing struck with a piece of glass also with its recovery standing effectuated under memo Ex.PW-1/A, besides with PW-5 deposing of the scuffle which erupted inter-se the victim and the accused standing terminated on the intersession of PW-2 and PW-5 in quick succession whereof the victim/complainant stood subjected to medical examination, cumulatively depict of the accused inflicting with a piece of glass recovered under memo PW-1/A injuries on the person of the complainant. Consequently, he submits of the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge qua the accused warranting interference, their arising from gross mis-appreciation of the testimonies of PWs 2 and 5 besides suffering from gross undermining by him of the import of the recovery memo comprised in Ex. PW-1/A. 10. The aforesaid submission addressed before this Court by the learned Deputy Advocate General holds no vigor as he has solitarily read besides focused upon the testimonies of both PW-2 and PW-5 in portrayal of the purported efficacious recovery of pieces of glass under memo Ex.PW-1/A whereas he has overlooked the earlier portion of their respective testimonies wherein each respectively echoes of a duel erupting inter-se accused and the complainant, duel whereof ended on the intersession of both the PWs aforesaid, wherein both omit to echo therein the prime factum of the victim standing inflicted with an injury by the accused with his using a broken piece of glass. Since the aforesaid prime factum was enjoined to be enunciated by both PW-2 and PW-5, the eye witnesses to the occurrence whereas it stands unpronounced by each renders the aforestated pronouncements in the MLC aforesaid also renders the efficacious recovery, if any, of broken pieces of glass under memo Ex. PW-1/A to hold no vigor. Since the aforesaid prime factum was enjoined to be enunciated by both PW-2 and PW-5, the eye witnesses to the occurrence whereas it stands unpronounced by each renders the aforestated pronouncements in the MLC aforesaid also renders the efficacious recovery, if any, of broken pieces of glass under memo Ex. PW-1/A to hold no vigor. Preeminently with PW-6 underscoring in his cross-examination of the injuries occurring on the person of the victim being se-quellable by fall, it appears hence of the duel, if any, which erupted inter-se the accused and the victim/complainant begetting the accidental breaking of glass, accidental breaking whereof appears to cause the accidental falling thereon of the complainant whereupon injuries stood entailed on his person. 11. A wholesome analysis of the evidence on record portrays that the appreciation of evidence as done by the learned Appellate Court does not suffer from any perversity and absurdity nor it can be said that the learned Appellate Court in recording findings of acquittal has committed any legal misdemeanor, in as much, as, its mis-appreciating the evidence on record or its omitting to appreciate the relevant and admissible evidence. In aftermath this Court does not deem it fit and appropriate that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Appellate Court merit any interference. 12. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the judgment of the learned Appellate Court is maintained and affirmed. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.