Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1581 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Amrit Lal

2016-08-03

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (Oral). The instant appeal stands directed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. III, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, rendered on 27.09.2007 in Police Challan No.41-II-2002/RBT No.69-II-4, whereby, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents herein for theirs allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 341, 325 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Panel Code. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 25.5.2002, complainant Tulsi Ram made a report at Police Station, Bhoranj. It was revealed by the complainant that on the same day at about 5.30 p.m. when he was about to cut a tree of 'kangu' which was existing on the boundary of his land, Dharam Singh, came there and told him that the tree belongs to him. He asked him that as it has come to him in the demarcation, as such, he would cut it. At this Amrit Lal and Mukesh Kumar came there. Amrit Lal snatched the 'Kulhadi' from him and threw it down whereas his son struck him with 'danda' from behind. His wife and son came to save him who were also beaten up by them as a result of which two teeth of his wife were broken. Mukesh Kumar struck his wife on her head. On hearing of cries, Salig Ram and Krodha Devi, came there and saved them. On the basis of this occurrence, an FIR was registered. Investigation was taken up and the Investigating Officer completed all the codal formalities. 3. On conclusion of the investigations, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the Court. 4. The accused were charged by the learned trial Court for theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded by the trial Court, in which they claimed innocence and pleaded false implication in the case. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded by the trial Court, in which they claimed innocence and pleaded false implication in the case. In defence evidence, the accused tendered copy of judgment of 1.8.2000 rendered in civil suit, Ex.D-1 and copy of grounds of appeal preferred therefrom before the learned Fist Appellate Court. 5. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused/respondents herein. 6. The State of H.P. is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned Deputy Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, theirs being sequelled by gross misappreciation 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 standing replaced by findings of conviction. 7. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below 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 ocular account qua the ill-fated occurrence stands purportedly lent by PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 , PW-6 and PW-9. If a reading of their respective depositions qua the occurrence is connotative of theirs rendering an account qua it with mutual harmony besides with consistency whereupon an inference would stand nursed of their respective renditions holding veracity. Shri Tulsi Ram, the complainant stepped into the witnesses box as PW-1 wherein he has made testifications qua the occurrence in tandem with the version qua it embodied in FIR Ex.PW1/A. He therein makes narrations of his while wielding an axe with user whereof he proposed to fell a 'kangu' tree, his standing thwarted by the accused in his assay to fell it. The aforesaid factum constituted the instigatory cause for an assault standing perpetrated on his person by the accused. However, the entitlement of PW-1 Tulsi Ram to fell a 'kangu' tree stands hinged upon his holding a demarcation report, demarcation report whereof he testified to purvey to the police, factum whereof stands contradicted by the Investigating Officer. With the assertion made by PW- 1 qua his holding a valid right to fell a 'kangu' tree, for felling whereof he proceeded, his efforts whereof stood baulked on his standing assaulted by the accused, when stand unsuccored by his not provenly purveying to the Investigating Officer the apposite demarcation report testified to be possessed by him, may dispel the vigour of his ocular account qua the occurrence, more so when it stands read in coagulation with Ex.D-1 comprising the rendition of a Civil Court recorded in favour of the plaintiff therein one Munshi Ram, the father of the accused also its standing rendered against the complainant, is personificatory of the complainant and the accused/respondents herein holding an aged embittered relation with each other wherefrom hence an inference is cultivated of the complainant rearing a vendetta against the accused/respondents herein, leading him to falsely implicate them. 10. Be that as it may in the light of formation by this Court of the aforesaid inference, a reading of the testimonies of the purported ocular witnesses to the ill-fated occurrence is also imperative, for gathering therefrom qua theirs rendering a harmonious besides consistent version qua it. PW-3 Smt. Krodha Devi deposes of hers along with her brother, PW-9 sighting the incident from the roof top, of her house. However, PW-9 dispels the presence of PW-3 along with him. The effect of PW-9 contradicting the deposition of PW-3, his sister, who contrarily deposes of hers along with PW-9 witnessing the incident from her roof top has a concomitant effect upon the testimonies qua the occurrence of PW-3 and PW-9 standing belied. In aftermath, no capital can stand drawn by the prosecution qua any rendition of an ocular account by them qua the occurrence. 11. In aftermath, no capital can stand drawn by the prosecution qua any rendition of an ocular account by them qua the occurrence. 11. Furthermore, with the Investigating Officer while his standing held to crossexamination by the defence counsel his acquiescing therein qua his omitting to in site plan Ex.PW10/A depict the house of Krodha Devi for thereupon this Court standing capacitated to discern its proximity vis-a-vis the site of occurrence also garners an inference of even if assumingly, the depositions of PW-3 and PW-9 in rendering an ocular account qua the occurrence are credible yet their respective testifications not holding any vigour given the distance of the site of occurrence from the house of PW-3, rendering them hence dis-empowered to sight it, with a sequeling effect of their ocular account qua the occurrence being contrived besides engineered. 12. The deposition of PW-6 wherein she has rendered an ocular account qua the occurrence is grossly uncreditworthy, significantly when the complainant in the FIR has not therein mentioned her name. The omission of the complainant to in the FIR recite the factum of PW-6 witnessing the occurrence is significant as given PW-6 holding a relationship with her as his daughter-in-law, he stood enjoined to name her in the FIR for ensuring his version qua the occurrence standing corroborated by her. Consequently, the glaring omission on the part of the complainant to in the FIR disclose his daughter-in-law Sarita Devi, PW-6 witnessing the occurrence renders her association as a witness to the occurrence by the Investigating Officer to be an ingenuous invention on his part also the rendition of an ocular account by her qua the occurrence appears to stand goaded by the prosecution aspiring to from her elicit a false corroboration to the testimony of PW-1. Preponderantly also her testimony hence is discardable. 13. PW-2, Sanjay Kumar, who is the son of PW-1, though also has lent corroboration to the testimony of PW-1, his father, yet when he ascribes an inculpatory role vis-a-vis the wives of Dharam Singh, Amrit Lal and Mukesh Kumar, ascriptions whereof qua them stand not imputed by PW-1, renders his deposition qua the facet aforesaid to be a gross improvement besides an embellishment vis-a-vis the version qua the occurrence pronounced in the FIR besides in contradictions to the proclamations qua it rendered by PW-1 whereupon hence his purported ocular account qua the occurrence loses truth. Also it hence appears of given his standing driven by the evident animosity existing inter se the complainant and the accused, his concerting to falsely implicate the accused/respondents herein. 14. The learned Deputy Advocate General contends qua the efficacious recovery of weapon of offence i.e. danda, Ex. P-1 standing made under memo Ex.PW1/B by the Investigating Officer connects the accused in the commission of the offences alleged. However, the aforesaid submission is frail as one of the witnesses to the recovery memo namely Shri Dandu Ram, PW4 has reneged from his previous statement recorded in writing also with his in his cross examination to which he stood subjected to by the learned APP concerned on his standing declared hostile with the permission of the trial Court denying therein of accused Mukesh Kumar in his presence handing over Ex.P-1 to the police, enhances an inference of the aforesaid recovery of danda Ex.P-1 by the Investigating Officer purportedly at the instance of accused Mukesh Kumar holding no efficacy. Further more, inefficacy qua the factum of recovery of Ex.P-1 under Memo Ex.PW1`/B by the Investigating Officer purportedly at the instance of accused Mukesh Kumar stands blunted by PW-5, the other witness to the apposite recovery, divulging in his testification qua the recovery of danda standing effectuated by the Investigating Officer from one Rajesh Kumar, who is not the accused hereat. 15. The learned Deputy Advocate General contends of with PW-13 timing the injuries declared in Ex.PW13/A with the time of the ill fated occurrence enumerated in the FIR connects the accused/respondents with the alleged occurrence. However, the aforesaid submission also holds no vigour, given the affliction of grievous injury ascribed by the prosecution to the accused/respondents standing hinged upon dislocation of the teeth of victim Premi Devi, factum whereof stands not proven by adduction of best evidence comprised in the report of the expert concerned holding pronouncements qua the teeth, as purportedly stood dislocated from her denture on hers standing belabroured by the accused/respondents, belonging to her. However, the aforesaid evidence stood smothered as the Investigating Officer omitted to collect the relevant teeth from the victim also the victim omitted to deliver their possession to PW-11. Consequently, an inference is marshable of the relevant teeth of the victim getting detached from her denture by a cause other than by hers standing belaboured by the accused/respondents. However, the aforesaid evidence stood smothered as the Investigating Officer omitted to collect the relevant teeth from the victim also the victim omitted to deliver their possession to PW-11. Consequently, an inference is marshable of the relevant teeth of the victim getting detached from her denture by a cause other than by hers standing belaboured by the accused/respondents. Aggravation to the aforesaid inference is gathered by the factum of PW-11 pronouncing in his deposition qua the denture of Premi Devi not holding the relevant teeth therein at the time when he held her to medical examination. Also with PW-13 pronouncing in his cross-examination qua the teeth existing in the denture of Premi Devi standing afflicted with pyrrhoea, renders also open an inference of her dislocated teeth also standing afflicted with pyrrhoea wherefrom a concomitant conclusion is arousable qua the aforesaid malady also afflicting the relevant teeth as stood dislocated from her denture hence sequelling their detachment therefrom. Consequently, even if there occurs synchronity inter se the timing of entailment of injury on the person of victim Premi Devi as pronounced in Ex.PW13/A vis-a-vis the relevant factum of its timing as stand enumerated in FIR Ex.PW1/A yet synchronity qua the facet aforesaid holds no clout, reiteratedly when the best evidence aforesaid for connecting the purported dislocated teeth from the denture of Prem Devi with her identity remains unadduced. 16. 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 material on record by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record. 17. Consequently, I find no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed and the judgment of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused/respondents herein by the learned trial Court is affirmed. Records be sent back forthwith.