Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1721 (HP)

Jarnail Singh v. Paramjeet Singh

2016-08-20

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SANJAY KAROL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of the present appeal, appellant/complainant has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 1997 dated 23.01.2009, vide which, accused were acquitted, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 435/34, 436, 427 read with Section 149 I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on 03.08.1993, at about 6.30 P.M. after the cremation of deceased Gurmeet Singh, a mob comprising of 500/600 people after having hatched conspiracy appeared on the spot having bottles of kerosene oil and danda etc. in their hands and proceeded towards the house of Amar Singh and they sprinkled kerosene oil on the grass storage and then set the same on fire. Police party comprising of HC Ram Parkash, Constable Nand Lal and Constable Santokha was provided for security of the house and family members of Amar Singh whose family members were alleged to be involved in the murder of deceased HC Gurmeet Singh. Some of the people of the mob broke open the doors of the house of Amar Singh and entered inside it and after sprinkling kerosene oil upon the articles in the house, put the same on fire. They also broke open the door of Desi Wine Shop. The mob also put the factory of Amar Singh on fire. It was further the case of the prosecution that the police party tried its best to stop and pacify the violent mob but were not successful. This resulted in heavy loss and destruction both to the house as well as the articles lying inside it. Fire could be controlled with the help of fire brigade. The matter was thereafter got investigated and challan was presented in the Court. As a prima facie case was found against the accused, they were accordingly charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 435/34, 436, 427 read with Section 149 I.P.C., to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material produced on record by the prosecution held that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, while returning the said findings, learned trial Court acquitted the accused. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court, Jarnaill Singh has filed the present appeal. 5. Accordingly, while returning the said findings, learned trial Court acquitted the accused. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court, Jarnaill Singh has filed the present appeal. 5. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court has not been assailed by the State. Another relevant fact which has to be taken note that the judgment passed by learned trial Court is on the basis of proceedings initiated against the accused vide FIR No. 57/93 and not on the basis of a private complaint filed by Jarnail Singh in the Court below. 6. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, learned counsel for the appellant argued that judgment passed by learned trial Court vide which accused persons had been acquitted was not sustainable in law because it stood proved beyond reasonable doubt from material which was placed on record by the prosecution that the accused were guilty of charges leveled against them. He further argued that it stood established from the record that the accused persons who had gone to attend the cremation of Gurmeet Singh, had thereafter planned to destroy the building and valuable articles of Amar Singh and accused No. 8 to 10 who were the members of unlawful assembly stood at the front gate of the building and loudly ordered and asked accused No. 1 to 7 to put the building on fire and on the instigation and abetment of the accused No. 8, 9 and 10, the same was set on fire. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1, 3 to 6, 9 and 10, argued that there was no infirmity with the judgment passed by learned trial Court nor there was any perversity or irregularity committed at any stage as was being projected in the grounds of appeal by the appellant and learned trial Court had rightly acquitted the accused because the prosecution had failed to substantiate the allegations levelled against the accused. It was contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and in these circumstances, it could not be said that the findings of acquittal returned by learned trial Court were either perverse or not borne out from the records of the case. It was contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and in these circumstances, it could not be said that the findings of acquittal returned by learned trial Court were either perverse or not borne out from the records of the case. Accordingly, he prayed that as there was no appeal filed by the State, the same be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case. 9. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution in all examined eight witnesses. 10. Malkiat Singh entered the witness box as PW-1 and stated that he was member of Gram Panchayat Majari in the year 1994. On 06.08.1993, he was called by the police at the residence of Amar Singh, which had been set on fire. He further stated that he did not know as to who had committed the offence as he was not present on the spot. He also stated that heavy loss was caused to Amar Singh but he had no knowledge who had set the house of Amar Singh on fire. 11. HHC Nand Lal entered the witness box as PW-2 and stated that on 03.08.1993 under the orders of Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, he alongwith other police officials was on duty at the house of Amar Singh in village Majari. He further stated that Amar Singh was alleged to have shot dead one Gurmeet Singh and on this account there was tension in the village. He further stated that women folk and other members of the family of Amar Singh had fled away from the house after shoot out. He further stated that at about 6.30 P.M. on 03.08.1993 a mob of 500-600 men, women and children had stormed towards the house of Amar Singh and set the same on fire. The factory of Amar Singh was set on fire alongwith a liquor vend. He further stated that it was not possible for him to identify the culprits who had managed to escape. He categorically stated that when the said mob came it was growing dark. 12. Smt. Naranjan Kaur entered the witness box as PW-3 and stated that she was married to Ajmer Singh in the year 1987 and was staying with her husband in his house in village Majari. He categorically stated that when the said mob came it was growing dark. 12. Smt. Naranjan Kaur entered the witness box as PW-3 and stated that she was married to Ajmer Singh in the year 1987 and was staying with her husband in his house in village Majari. She further stated that on 02.08.1993 one Gurmeet Singh was murdered in their village. Police had rounded up some members of her family in connection with the said murder in the morning of 03.08.1993. She further stated that she was present in her house on 03.08.1993 at about 6.00 P.M. She further stated that at that time, accused No. 1 to 5 came to their house accompanied by four others and set their house on fire. She further stated that she and her elder sister-in-law Purshotam Kaur requested the accused persons not to set their house on fire. In no time, their house was reduced to ashes. She further stated that they had saved themselves by running out of the house and they took shelter with their men in village Ghamirpur. She further deposed that ten persons entered their house and set their house on fire though 200 to 400 persons had assembled outside their house. She also stated that she narrated the incident to Jarnail Singh. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that on 03.08.1993 the police had been on guard duty outside their house. This witness was confronted with her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which the facts as were deposed by her on oath in Court were not so recorded. She also stated that she had not raised any hue and cry when her house was set on fire rather they had run away. Thereafter, she stated they had walked away slowly out of their house. She also stated that she did not notice any police officials standing outside her house. 13. Jarnail Singh entered the witness box as PW-4. According to him, he found Naranjan Kaur and Purshotam Kaur with their men at Ghamirpur on 03.08.1993 at 8.00 P.M. and these two ladies told him that accused had rushed to their house and had set it on fire. He also stated that they had suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 15 Lacs approximately. According to him, Ram Parkash HC had reported the occurrence to the police. He also stated that they had suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 15 Lacs approximately. According to him, Ram Parkash HC had reported the occurrence to the police. He also stated that when police did not take any action in the matter against the accused persons, he sought legal assistance and had instituted complaint Ext. PW4/A. In his cross-examination, he mentioned that he did not state before the police that on 03.08.1993 Naranjan Kaur and his wife Darshan Kaur had informed him that accused persons had set their house on fire. He was confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which was contrary to what he was deposing in Court. 14. Birbal Ram entered the witness box as PW-5 and he stated that he was working as ASI/Incharge, P.P. Golthai under Police station Kot Kehloor in 1993. He also deposed that he had recorded statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of HC Ram Parkash, who had been posted on guard duty at the house of Amar Singh. He also stated that Constable Nand Lal and Constable Santokha was also accompanying HC Ram Parkash. He deposed that Ram Parkash had stated that a mob comprising 500 men and women and children had stormed towards the house of Amar Singh and set the same on fire. He also deposed about having recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also prepared rough sketch map. 15. PW-6 Bal Mukand had recorded statements of Suriudner Singh and Jogidner Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 16. PW-7 Kashmiru Ram stated that he was working as Inspector/SHO Police station Kot Kehloor and had conducted investigation of case FIR No. 57/93 and arrested accused Daljit Singh. He also stated that he had prepared the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 17. PW-8 Suridner Singh deposed that he knew accused persons and on 03.08.1993 after cremation of dead body of Gurmeet Singh when he had reached near the house of Amar Singh, he noticed accused persons Swarn Singh, Harbans Singh and Gurbux Singh instigating other co-accused to set on fire house of Amar Singh. He also stated that he saw accused sprinkling kerosene oil on the house of Amar Singh. He also deposed about them setting on fire the factory of Amar Singh. In his cross-examination, he stated that Joginder Singh was husband of his mother’s sister. He also stated that he saw accused sprinkling kerosene oil on the house of Amar Singh. He also deposed about them setting on fire the factory of Amar Singh. In his cross-examination, he stated that Joginder Singh was husband of his mother’s sister. He also stated that Jogidner Singh had died while he stood committed to jail on charge of murder of Amar Singh. He also stated that Amar Singh deceased was grand-father of accused Bhag Singh. He also admitted it to be correct that complainant party had been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. for having committed murder of Gurmeet Singh. He also admitted it to be correct that Gurmeet Singh had been done to death at his tube well. 18. These were the witnesses produced by the prosecution before learned trial Court to substantiate their case against the accused. One fact which emerges from the perusal of the testimony of prosecution witnesses is this that the police officials who were on duty to guard the house of Amar Singh have stated that the house was set on fire by a mob of 500-600 people and it could not be inferred as to actually set the house on fire. The testimony of PW-3 Naranjan Kaur is in total contradiction to what has been stated by HHC Nand Lal who was on duty to protect the house of Amar Singh. PW-3 Naranjan Kaur has in fact denied that any police was deployed to safeguard the house of Amar Singh. 19. The factum of police officials having been deployed is apparent from the testimony of PW-2 who was on duty there as well as from the statements of PW-5 ASI Incharge P.P. Golthai, who has categorically stated that that HC RamParkash alongwith constable Nand Lal and Santokha Ram were on guard duty at the house of Amar Singh. This demonstrates that PW-3 who otherwise is an interested witness is not deposing the truth. Not only this, her statement to the effect that the accused persons came inside the house and set the same on fire and thereafter she alongwith her family members and children ran away to save their lives also does not seem to be correct. This is for the reason that it has not been stated by PW-2 HHC Nand Lal that the accused persons entered the house of Amar Singh and thereafter, set the house on fire. This is for the reason that it has not been stated by PW-2 HHC Nand Lal that the accused persons entered the house of Amar Singh and thereafter, set the house on fire. As per PW-2 HHC Nand Lal house was set on fire by mob and because it was going dark, therefore, it could not be identified that who actually committed the mischief. While there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-2, there are all the reasons to disbelieve the testimony of PW-3 because of her denial of the proved fact that the police officials were deployed to protect the house of Amar Singh. Besides this, PW-3 has been confronted with her statement which was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and it is apparent from the perusal of the said statement of her when compared with her deposition made in the Court that there are major inconsistencies and contradictions in the said statements. Existence of enmity between the complainant and the accused is writ large and, therefore, the possibility of the said witness deposing falsely cannot be ruled out. Not only this, in her crossexamination, she has stated that when their house was set on fire allegedly by the accused no hue and cry was raised by her which conduct of a person whose house is being set on fire is very very unnatural. Besides this, while initially she stated that she alongwith her family members and children ran away, subsequently she stated that they slowly walked away. All these facts create serious doubt about the credibility of the said witness and, therefore, in our considered view, conviction of the accused cannot be based on the testimony of the said witness which does not inspire confidence of the Court. 20. As far as PW-4 is concerned, he is not an eye witness and he has only deposed what was told to him by Naranjan Kaur, Darshan Kaur and Purshotam Kaur. Incidentally, except Naranjan Kaur, other two ladies had not been examined by the prosecution. The testimony of Naranjan Kaur has already been held by us to be not trustworthy. The credibility of the testimony of both PW-3 as well as PW-4 has been impinged by the defence as there are inconsistencies and contradictions in their versions as recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. when compared with their statements made in the Court. The testimony of Naranjan Kaur has already been held by us to be not trustworthy. The credibility of the testimony of both PW-3 as well as PW-4 has been impinged by the defence as there are inconsistencies and contradictions in their versions as recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. when compared with their statements made in the Court. Besides this, both PW-3 and PW-4 are interested witnesses. 21. Similarly, PW-8 is also an interested witness, as he is related to the complainant. The version putforth by him that while returning back from cremation he heard the accused conspiring and instigating others to burn the house of Amar Singh and he also saw the house being burnt by accused persons Kala, Bhag Singh, Daljit Singh and Kuldeep Singh, does not inspire confidence because this is contrary to what has been stated by HHC Nand Lal. The credibility of this witness has been totally impinged in his cross-examination by the defence. His credential is doubtful and it is apparent from his testimony that whatever he has deposed, the same has been stated to implicate the accused. 22. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed by us hereinabove, it cannot be said that on the strength of the material produced on record by the prosecution it stood proved that the accused had either instigated others to burn the house and factory etc. of Amar Singh or had actually burnt the house and factory etc. of Amar Singh. A perusal of the judgment passed by learned trial Court demonstrates that all these aspects of the matter have been taken care by learned trial Court. After considering the entire evidence placed on record, learned trial Court returned the findings of acquittal in favour of the accused by holding that it could not be proved that the accused were guilty of the offences for which they were charged. 23. In our considered view, the findings so returned by learned trial Court are neither perverse nor there is any infirmity with the said findings. According to us also, guilt of the accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and there was no independent witness to substantiate the factum of the house of Amar Singh and his factory having been set on fire by the accused or the same having been set on fire by other persons on the instigation of said accused. According to us also, guilt of the accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and there was no independent witness to substantiate the factum of the house of Amar Singh and his factory having been set on fire by the accused or the same having been set on fire by other persons on the instigation of said accused. Therefore, in our considered view, there is no merit in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that the judgment of acquittal returned by learned trial Court is not sustainable. Accordingly, while upholding the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial court, we dismissed the present appeal being devoid of any merit. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.