Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 538 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Geeta Ram

2016-04-22

RAJIV SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is instituted against Judgment dated 31.3.2010 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kandaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Case No. 37/2 of 2008, whereby respondents-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who were charged with and tried for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 323 IPC have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 27.7.2008 at about 6 PM, complainant Devi Ram after finishing his work at Dharyan, had gone to Dunti to purchase flour. Sandeep met him who told that accused Geeta Ram, Rakesh, Ramesh and his two sons-in-law were waiting for him in the way in order to give him beatings. He changed his path and went home through a Nala and when he was 100 metres away from his home, accused persons carrying sticks in their hands came there and started beating him with the sticks. He became unconscious. Thereafter accused left the spot. He sustained injuries on arms, legs and back. When he gained conscious, he went to his home and narrated the incident to his wife. His wife called Prakash Chand and Krishan Dutt and thereafter he was taken to the hospital. Case was reported to the police. Statement of the complainant under Section 154 CrPC was recorded. Sticks were taken into possession. MLC of the complainant was obtained. Matter was investigated. Challan was put up in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses to prove its case against accused. Accused were examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. Accused stated that they were innocent. Accused were acquitted as noticed above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, Additional Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Mohan Singh, Advocate, has supported the judgment dated 31.3.2010. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 7. PW-1 Devi Ram testified that on 27.7.2008 (sic. 27.8.2008), he was going towards his house. Sandeep met him and he told him that accused persons were waiting for him. He changed his path and when he was 100 metres short of his house at 8 PM, accused came on the spot and started giving beatings. 7. PW-1 Devi Ram testified that on 27.7.2008 (sic. 27.8.2008), he was going towards his house. Sandeep met him and he told him that accused persons were waiting for him. He changed his path and when he was 100 metres short of his house at 8 PM, accused came on the spot and started giving beatings. He was given beatings on legs, arms and back. Accused left the spot. Thereafter, he came to his house and narrated the incident to his wife. His wife called Prakash Chand and Krishan Chand by telephone. Police recorded his statement under Section 154 CrPC vide Ext. PW-1/A. Police came on the spot. He handed over blood stained clothes. These were taken into possession vide Ext. PW-1/B. Police also made recovery of sticks from the spot. In his cross-examination, he categorically admitted that the relations between Sandeep and accused Geeta Ram were strained. Geeta Ram has also lodged a criminal case against him for giving beatings to him. 8. PW-2 Hira Singh deposed that the complainant Devi Ram has handed over clothes to the police. Police has taken into possession the same. Police has also taken into possession sticks. He categorically stated in his cross-examination that he has not seen the incident. 9. PW-3 Sandeep Kumar testified that he met his uncle Geeta Ram and his Aunt. Other accused were not with him. Devi Ram has also met him. He told him that a quarrel has taken place with his uncle. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. He denied the suggestion that on 27.7.2008, at about 7.30 PM, when Geeta Ram, his two sons and two sons-in-law were carrying sticks in their hands and were discussing that they would teach Devi Ram a lesson. He denied the suggestion that Geeta Ram and others have changed their path. In his cross-examination, by the learned defence Counsel, he has admitted that he did not know about the quarrel. 10. PW-4 Shri Prakash Chand testified that Devi Ram's wife summoned him to his house. Devi Ram had received injuries. Devi Ram told him that accused had given beatings to him. He also admitted in his cross-examination that the quarrel has not taken place in his presence. 11. PW-5 Dr. Sanjeev Chauhan testified that he issued MLC. Injuries No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were simple in nature. Devi Ram had received injuries. Devi Ram told him that accused had given beatings to him. He also admitted in his cross-examination that the quarrel has not taken place in his presence. 11. PW-5 Dr. Sanjeev Chauhan testified that he issued MLC. Injuries No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were simple in nature. Injuries No. 1, 6 and 12, after X-ray, were also found to be simple in nature. 12. PW-7 Nisha Devi testified that on 27.7.2008, she alongwith her mother-in-law was in house and her brother-in-law Krishan Dutt had gone to the hospital. At 8.30 PM, her husband came to house. He was bleeding. He told her that the accused had given beatings to him with sticks. Her husband was taken to Chail hospital. 13. PW-8 ASI Sudhir Kumar deposed that on 28.7.2008 at about 1.15 in the night, information was received from CH Chail that Devi Ram was admitted in the hospital. He reached the spot. Statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 154 CrPC vide Ext. PW-1/A. MLC of the complainant was obtained vide Ext. PW-5/A. Sticks were recovered from the accused. 14. PW-3 Sandeep Kumar has not supported the case of the prosecution. He was declared hostile. In his examination-in-chief, he categorically stated that though he met Geeta Ram and his aunt but other accused were not with him. He has denied the suggestion that on 27.7.2008, at about 7.30 PM, Geeta Ram and others were carrying sticks in their hands and were discussing to teach a lesson to the complainant. PW-1 Devi Ram has admitted that the accused have registered a case against him. PW-2 Hira Singh has deposed that no quarrel has taken place in his presence. Similarly, Prakash Chand has also stated in his examination-in-chief that no quarrel has taken place. 15. Now, so far as the evidence of PW-7 Nisha Devi is concerned, same is also hearsay evidence. She has not seen the accused giving beatings to Devi Ram. Injuries caused to the complainant are simple in nature. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons. There is no reason for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court. 16. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.