Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 406 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pano Devi

2016-04-04

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is instituted at the instance of the State against the judgment dated 28.10.2011, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 32/2010, whereby the respondents-accused (hereinafter referred to as accused), who were charged with and tried for offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307 and 504 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, have been acquitted. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that on 10.11.2009 at 12:30 PM, Smt. Shakuntla Devi and her niece Gyatri Devi were bringing pieces of wood for stacking haystack. When they reached near the place of proposed haystack, they were accosted by the accused persons. The accused asked Shakuntla Devi as to why they intended to raise haystack at that place. Complainant Shakuntla Devi replied that they had been stacking haystack at the same place every year since long being the owners. The accused persons started beating Shakuntla Devi with fist and kick blows, whereas accused Ravinder Kumar and Surinder Kumar gave beatings to her with dandas. Bir Singh, nephew of Shakuntla Devi raised hue and cry. He was also beaten up by the accused persons. In the meantime, Gyatri Devi and Karmi Devi etc. rescued Shakuntla Devi and Bir Singh from the accused. Bir Singh informed the police on telephone. HC Ranjit Singh, and Const. Suresh Kumar visited the spot at village Chabutra. HC Ranjit Singh recorded the statement of Shakuntla Devi under Section 154 Cr. P.C and sent the same to Police Station, Sujanpur. On the basis of this statement, FIR was recorded. Shakuntla Devi and Bir Singh were got medically examined. On completion of the investigation, challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as 13 witnesses. The accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. According to them, they were falsely implicated. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Dy. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused persons. On the other hand, Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned Sr. Advocate has supported the judgment of the trial Court dated 28.10.2011. 5. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Dy. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused persons. On the other hand, Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned Sr. Advocate has supported the judgment of the trial Court dated 28.10.2011. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the sides and have also gone through the judgment and records of the case carefully. 6. PW-2 Dr. Sanjeev Sharma testified that on 1.1.2009, he was posted as Radiologist in Regional Hospital, Hamirpur. Shakuntla Devi was referred to him by Dr. Parveen Kumar for C.T. Scan of the head. C.T. Scan was done under his supervision. C.T. Scan film is Ext. PW-2/A. He issued report Ext. PW-2/B. As per the report, there was a fracture of left high parietal region extending laterally towards parietal prominence. There was adjoining soft tissue swelling in left parietal region. There was a fracture of left parietal bone with adjoining shaft tissue swelling. The injury was grievous in nature. 7. PW-3 Lokha Ram deposed that police had called him to PS Sujanpur on 16.12.2009 when a danda was sealed in a cloth parcel in his presence. The danda was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-3/A. In his cross-examination, he admitted that accused Pano Devi is his real Aunt (Chachi). 8. PW-7 Dr. Praveen Kumar has examined Shakuntla Devi on 10.11.2009 and observed the following injuries: “1. Laceration scalp on top of head 4 cm long, red in colour, bleeding on touch. 2. Laceration on scalp, occipital region, 3.5 cm in size, red in colour, bleeding on touch. 3. Abrasion on left forearm 3 mm x 7 cm on medial aspect, red in colour. 4. Tenderness over left upper back near neck, overlying skin is normal. No clinical evidence of bony injury.” She was referred to Regional Hospital, Hamirpur, for C.T. Scan. He observed that injuries No. 1 and 2 were grievous in nature because of fracture of left parietal bone. Thus, these were dangerous to life. He issued MLC Ext. PW-7/B. The duration of injuries was six hours. These injuries were possible by giving blows with dandas Ext. P- 1 and P-2. He also examined Bir Singh and observed following injuries. “1. Laceration scalp on top of head, 3 cm in size, bleeding on touch. 2. Swelling left hand on dorsal side. He issued MLC Ext. PW-7/B. The duration of injuries was six hours. These injuries were possible by giving blows with dandas Ext. P- 1 and P-2. He also examined Bir Singh and observed following injuries. “1. Laceration scalp on top of head, 3 cm in size, bleeding on touch. 2. Swelling left hand on dorsal side. Tender to touch, overlying skin is normal. 3. Tenderness over left amputated thigh stump. Overlying skin is normal. 4. Bruise on left upper back, over an area of 3 x 5 cm, red in colour.” He advised x-ray for injury No. 2. According to the Radiologist’s opinion, there was fracture of 4th metacarpal of left hand. This injury was grievous in nature. Rest of the injuries were simple. The duration of injuries caused was within six hours. He issued MLC Ext. PW-7/C. In his cross-examination, he admitted that all the four injuries as detailed in the MLC Ext. PW-7/B were possible by giving a single blow with danda Ext. P-1. He also admitted that the injuries detailed in Ext. PW-7/C were also possible by giving single blow with danda Ext. P-1. 9. PW-8 Shakuntla Devi testified that she along with Gyatri Devi had gone to bring some wood from their fields situated in village Chabutra. While they were on the way to the field, they met accused Ravinder Kumar, Surinder Kumar and Smt. Pano Devi. The accused persons intercepted them on the path and started hurling abuses to them. She asked them as to why they were abusing them. The accused persons replied that they should not stack grass in their land. They had been stacking grass over that land since they were owners. Thereafter, accused Pano Devi and her daughter-in-law Kamlesh Kumari started beating them by giving fist and kick blows. Accused Ravinder Kumar and Surinder Kumar took dandas and they started beating them with the same. The accused persons inflicted injuries by danda blows on her head and back. Accused Surinder Kumar also inflicted danda blows on the person of Bir Singh. Accused Pano Devi and Kamlesh Kumari gave beatings to them by giving fist and kick blows. Karmi Devi, Gyatri Devi and Lokha Ram reached the spot and they rescued them from the accused. Her nephew Bir Singh informed the police on telephone about the occurrence and police came on the spot and recorded her statement Ext. Accused Pano Devi and Kamlesh Kumari gave beatings to them by giving fist and kick blows. Karmi Devi, Gyatri Devi and Lokha Ram reached the spot and they rescued them from the accused. Her nephew Bir Singh informed the police on telephone about the occurrence and police came on the spot and recorded her statement Ext. PW-8/A. They were taken to hospital for medical examination. In her cross-examination, she admitted that they intended to stack grass adjoining to the house of accused Pano Devi. Volunteered that they are owners of that place. She did not know the khasra number of the land where the incident took place. They were stacking the grass on the land which was about 2-3 feet from the house of accused Pano Devi. 10. PW-9 Bir Singh deposed that on 10.11.2009, he alongwith Shakuntla Devi started stacking grass on pieces of wood in the village. It was 12:30 PM at that time. They were placing wood for stacking the grass. Kamlesh Kumari, Pano Devi, Ravinder Kumar and Surinder Kumar intercepted Shakuntla Devi on the path and they started hurling abuses to her. They were saying that the land belonged to them. The accused started beating PW-8 Shakuntla Devi with fist and kick blows. Accused Ravinder Kumar & Surinder Kumar started beating PW-8 Shakuntla Devi with dandas on her head. When he raised hue and cry, accused Ravinder Kumar gave beatings to him with danda. The other accused were giving beatings to Shakuntla Devi. He admitted in his cross-examination that PW-8 Shakuntla Devi intended to stack grass just adjoining to the house of Pano Devi. 11. PW-10 Karmi Devi deposed that Shakuntla used to stack grass in her land since long. On 10.11.2009 at about 12:30 PM, she was on her way to fields. She heard noise of quarrel from the place of occurrence and she went on to the spot. Shakuntla and Bir Singh were placing pieces of wood on the land in order to stack grass thereon and Gyatri Devi was handing over the pieces of wood to Shakuntla and Bir Singh. The accused Ravinder Kumar, Surinder Kumar, Kamlesh Kumari and Pano Devi started hurling abuses to Shakuntla Devi and Bir Singh. Ravinder Kumar and Surinder Kumar took the pieces of wood from the spot and started beating Shakuntla Devi and Bir Singh. The accused Ravinder Kumar, Surinder Kumar, Kamlesh Kumari and Pano Devi started hurling abuses to Shakuntla Devi and Bir Singh. Ravinder Kumar and Surinder Kumar took the pieces of wood from the spot and started beating Shakuntla Devi and Bir Singh. Pano Devi and Kamlesh Kumari started beating Shakuntla Devi and Bir Singh with fist and kick blows. He and Gyatri Devi intervened and rescued Shakuntla Devi and Bir Singh from the accused. In the meantime, Lokha Ram also came on the spot. In her cross-examination, PW-10 Karmi Devi admitted that Shakuntla Devi is her Devrani (sister-in-law). 12. PW-12 HC Ranjit Singh deposed that he reached the spot and recorded the statement of PW-8 Shakuntla Devi under Section 154 Cr. P.C. vide Ext. PW-8/A. He prepared the spot map vide Ext. PW- 12/A. Two dandas were also recovered vide memo Ext. PW-11/A. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the place where the dispute arose between the parties about stacking of grass was owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh. 13. PW-13 ASI Shamsher Singh deposed that the case was investigated by HC Ranjit Singh and ASI Sukh Lal. The weapon of offence i.e. one danda was received back from SFSL, Junga with an objection that the same was not sent in a sealed parcel. After receiving the same, he packed it and sealed in a parcel with 6 seal impressions of seal “K”. He prepared memo Ext. PW-3/A about the sealing in the presence of witnesses Lokha Ram and Banku Ram. 14. DW-1 Amar Singh deposed that he went to the house of Pano Devi at 11:30 AM and remained there till 1:00 PM. Shakuntla Devi started stacking grass in the land coming in possession of Pano Devi, which was government land. 15. PW-8 Shakuntla Devi deposed that she along with Gyatri Devi had gone to bring some wood from their fields situated in village Chabutra. While they were on way to the field, they met Ravinder Kumar, Surinder Kumar and Smt. Pano Devi. The accused persons intercepted them on the path and started hurling abuses to them. However, PW-9 Bir Singh deposed that on 10.11.2009, he alongwith Shakuntla Devi started stacking grass on pieces of wood in the village. PW-10 Karmi Devi deposed that Shakuntla used to stack grass in her land since long. On 10.11.2009 at about 12:30 PM, she was on her way to fields. However, PW-9 Bir Singh deposed that on 10.11.2009, he alongwith Shakuntla Devi started stacking grass on pieces of wood in the village. PW-10 Karmi Devi deposed that Shakuntla used to stack grass in her land since long. On 10.11.2009 at about 12:30 PM, she was on her way to fields. She heard noise of quarrel from the place of occurrence and she went on to the spot. Shakuntla and Bir Singh were placing pieces of wood on the land in order to stack grass thereon and Gyatri Devi was handing over the pieces of wood to Shakuntla and Bir Singh. Thus, there is variance in the statements of PW-8 Shakuntla Devi, PW- 9 Bir Singh and PW-10 Karmi Devi. PW-8 Shakuntla Devi deposed that she was on her way when she was intercepted but PW-9 Bir Singh and PW-10 Karmi Devi deposed that they had started stacking grass on pieces of wood in the village. According to the facts stated in the FIR the accused persons intercepted Shakuntla Devi and Bir Singh, when they were on their way to stack the grass, however, as per PW-9 Bir Singh and PW-10 Karmi Devi, Shakuntla Devi and Bir Singh were already stacking grass in haystack. 16. The case of the prosecution was that the land was owned by PW-8 Shakuntla Devi. We have already noticed that PW-12 HC Ranjit Singh in his cross-examination has deposed that the place where the dispute arose between the parties about stacking of grass was owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh. 17. PW-8 Shakuntla Devi deposed that Bir Singh was given danda blows by Surinder Kumar. However, Bir Singh while appearing as PW-9 has deposed that he was given danda blows by Ravinder Kumar. According to PW-3 Lokha Ram, the land where grass was to be stacked was in possession of accused Pano Devi. DW-1 Amar Singh deposed that he went to the house of Pano Devi at 11:30 AM and remained there till 1:00 PM. Shakuntla Devi started stacking grass in the land coming in possession of Pano Devi, which was government land. Thus, it is duly proved that the haystack was to be stacked on disputed piece of land. It has come on record that the grass was being stacked on the land which is adjacent to the house of accused Pano Devi. Shakuntla Devi started stacking grass in the land coming in possession of Pano Devi, which was government land. Thus, it is duly proved that the haystack was to be stacked on disputed piece of land. It has come on record that the grass was being stacked on the land which is adjacent to the house of accused Pano Devi. According to PW-8 Shakuntla Devi when the accused were beating them, witnesses, Karmi Devi, Gyatri Devi and Lokha Ram came to the spot and they rescued the complainant Shakuntla Devi and Bir Singh from the clutches of accused persons. However, Lokha Ram while appearing as PW-3 did not support the prosecution story that the accused were seen by him beating Shakuntla Devi and Bir Singh with dandas Exts. P-1 and P-2. 18. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. Thus, there is no occasion for us to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court dated 28.10.2011. 19. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.