Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1623 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Dhanwant Singh

2016-08-05

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the impugned judgment of 26.6.2008 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 11/NL/7 of 2007/01, whereby the respondents (for short ‘accused’) stood acquitted by the learned trial Court for the offences charged. 2. Facts in brief are that on 22.6.2000 at about 9 a.m. the accused formed unlawful assembly at village Sauri Bhumia Tehsil and P.S Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P and committed rioting. In furtherance of the common object of unlawful assembly voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Smt. Gian Kaur, Inder Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Mohan Singh, Joginder Singh, Kulbinder Kaur, Jawant Kaur, Gurmeet Kaur and Hrdit Singh. They also committed house trespass with intent to administer beatings to Hardit Singh and Others. They acted and conducted with such an intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that they had caused the death of Hardit Singh, they would have been guilty of murder and thereby caused hurt to Hardit Singh. After the occurrence the repot was made to the police. FIR was registered. All the injured were medically examined. 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. The learned Sessions Judge assigned this case to the learned trial Court. 3. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court for theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 147, 325, 452, 307 read with section 149 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses. On closure of 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. However, they chose to lead evidence in defence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 6. The learned Addl. 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 standing se-quelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. 6. The learned Addl. 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 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 Sr. counsel appearing for the respondents/accused has with considerable force and vigor 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. In sequel to the assault perpetrated upon the victims/injured by the accused as manifested by MLCs comprised in Ex. PW-15/A to PW-15/H and PW-15/J injuries stood entailed upon their respective persons. Also with the ocular account qua the occurrence being bereft of any vice of intra-se contradictions rather their respective testifications qua the occurrence holding mutual harmony renders open an inference of the prosecution succeeding in proving its case against the accused. Further more with the efficacious recovery of weapons of offence under memo Ex. PW8/R to PW-8/V with aplomb foists an inference of the prosecution succeeding in proving its case against the accused. This Court while deciding the Cr. Appeal No. 8 of 2010 had on an analysis of material concluded of though some of the injured-victims herein arrayed as accused therein while theirs may be exercising the right of private defence of property theirs hence taking to may be open an assault on the person of the victim/injured therein/accused herein. However, the aforesaid inference recorded in Cr. Appeal No. 8 of 2010 would not per-se constrain an inference from this Court of the accused herein initiating the aggression upon the injured/victims herein. The prime factum aforesaid was enjoined to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. However the investigating Officer has not investigated the prime factum aforesaid. However, the aforesaid inference recorded in Cr. Appeal No. 8 of 2010 would not per-se constrain an inference from this Court of the accused herein initiating the aggression upon the injured/victims herein. The prime factum aforesaid was enjoined to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. However the investigating Officer has not investigated the prime factum aforesaid. Only on his holding apposite investigations he would have unearthed vis-a-vis the accused herein or the injured complainant therein initiating the aggression for repulsing whereof the recipients of the initial assault held a statutory right of private defence of body. Consequently, with the prime factum aforesaid standing engulfed in a shroud of darkness no imputation can be made vis-a-vis the accused herein qua their initiating the aggression whereupon alone it could stand firmly concluded qua theirs hence being liable to face conviction for the charges for which they stood charged besides tried by the learned trial court. Contrarily for omission aforesaid qua the prime factum probandum aforesaid, a conclusion stands drawn by this Court of an alike benefit hence of doubt as stands afforded to the accused in Criminal appeal No.8 of 2010, the victims/complainant herein standing enjoined to be likewise afforded qua the accused herein wherefrom an inevitable conclusion may be is qua the victims/ complainant maybe holding the posture of initiators of aggression wherefrom the ensuing sequel occurs qua the accused herein holding a sudden scuffle with the victims/complainants, leading to an ensuing conclusion of maybe the accused herein for repulsing the aggression launched upon them by the victims herein theirs may be while exercising the statutory right of private defence of body, theirs during course thereof inflicting injuries on the person of the victims/injured herein. Also with this Court holding in Cr. Also with this Court holding in Cr. Appeal No. 8 of 2010 of the accused therein who are the victims/injured herein also during the course of a scuffle which occurred inter-se both warring groups on the ill-fated day receiving injuries on their respective persons also theirs instituting a cross FIR qua the same occurrence renders the effect if any of the wielding of the relevant weapons of offence at the relevant time by the accused herein besides their user upon the victims/injured herein to not fall outside the domain qua theirs for reasons afore-stated standing sinewed to propagate here-before qua theirs committing the purported penal acts in the garb of theirs may be exercising the right of private defence of body. Furthermore, concomitantly the recovery of weapons of offence i.e. sickle and axe also holds no vigour moreso when the victims herein also wielded weapons of offence rendering the scuffle inter se them to be a competitive equal duel inter se both. Also an inference is aroused of hence the accused herein while exercising the right of private defence of body not exceeding it given both the warring groups not receiving fatal wounds on their respective person. 10. A wholesome analysis of the evidence on record portrays that the appreciation of evidence as done by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity and absurdity nor it can be said that the learned trial 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 trial Court merit any interference. 11. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court is maintained and affirmed. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.