Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 729 (HP)

Joginder Singh v. State of H. P.

2016-05-10

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SANJAY KAROL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by complainant Joginder Singh against judgment passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, dated 16.12.2011, in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2007, vide which learned trial Court has acquitted the accused therein for offences under Sections 307, 323, 341, 447 and 506 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C., by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 26.07.2005 a statement was made under Section 154 Cr.P.C. by PW-1 Joginder Singh, vide which, he reported that on 26.07.2005 at around 5.15 P.M. he saw accused Onkar Singh lifting stones from his land. On this, he went inside his house and brought camera and thereafter took photographs of Onkar Singh. After taking photographs, he kept the camera inside the room and as soon as he came out of the room, accused persons started pelting stones on him. On hearing his cries, his wife PW-2 Santosh Kumari came out of his house and accused Piar Singh and Baldev Singh caught hold of his wife and started dragging her towards the other side. When the complainant tried to rescue his wife, accused Baldev Singh gave a blow of Drat on his head and he also gave a blow of Drat to his wife. Thereafter, mother of accused Baldev Singh caught hold of the complainant and in the meantime Bimla Devi wife of Sukh Ram, Raj Kumar son of Sukh Ram, Anju Devi wife of Tarsem Singh and Babli Devi came on the spot and rescued complainant and his wife. 3. FIR was accordingly registered on the basis of the aforesaid statement under Sections 341, 447, 323 and 506 I.P.C. against the accused. Investigation was carried out and complainant Joginder Singh and his wife were also got medically examined and on the basis of the medical examination, case under Section 307 I.P.C. was also added against the accused persons. The spot was visited by the police and a site plan was also prepared. Police also took photographs of the spot and it also took into possession blood stained clothes of the injured. The spot was visited by the police and a site plan was also prepared. Police also took photographs of the spot and it also took into possession blood stained clothes of the injured. Challan was filed and as a strong prima facie case was found against the accused persons, they were accordingly charged with offences under Sections 307, 323, 341, 447 and 506 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution in all examined 20 witnesses, which also included victims i.e. PW-1 and PW-2. 5. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 16.12.2011 acquitted all the accused by holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons. 6. State did not file any appeal against the judgment so passed by the learned trial Court. The present appeal has been filed by the victim i.e. Joginder Singh. 7. Grounds taken in the appeal by the appellant, inter-alia, are that the judgment under challenge is based on hypothesis, conjectures and surmises and that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence and Respondents No. 2 to 5 have been acquitted on flimsy grounds. Further, as per the appellant, learned trial Court had failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in true perspective and the reasons of acquittal given by the learned trial Court are manifestly unsustainable and consistent testimony of the prosecution witnesses should have been accepted so as to convict the accused persons. Further, as per the appellant, undue weightage of alleged enmity between the complainant and the accused had been given by the learned trial Court and it has not been appreciated that the accused in fact wanted to eliminate the appellant to grab his land. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant that the learned trial Court has given undue consideration to minor discrepancies in the prosecution evidence and in the last, it was urged on behalf of the appellant that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is perverse and not sustainable in law and accordingly, is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the case as well as the judgment under challenge. 9. 8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the case as well as the judgment under challenge. 9. Apparently, the element of animosity between the complainant and the accused cannot be ruled out forthwith. In his cross-examination, appellant/complainant has admitted that there is a land dispute between him and accused Piar Singh and that accused Piar Singh had also filed a civil suit regarding land against him in the Court at Ghumarwin in March, 2005, which was still pending. 10. In his statement PW-1 has said that on 26.07.2005 he was sleeping at his house and at around 5.15 P.M. when he came out, he saw accused Onkar Singh, Nikki Devi and Baldev Singh collecting stones and cutting grass from his land. He went inside and brought a camera and took photographs of the accused persons. As soon as he came out from the room after keeping the camera inside, the accused persons started pelting stones on him and accused Piar Singh came towards him with Drat in his hand. Accused persons also caught hold of his wife Santosh Kumari, who was standing near kitchen of their house. Accused Onkar Singh and Nikki Devi continued pelting stones on the complainant and accused Piar Singh and Baldev Singh dragged his wife towards the side of his house. While dragging his wife, accused Piar Singh asked accused Baldev Singh to give a blow of Drat to his wife. Thereafter, accused Baldev Singh gave a blow of Drat to his wife, which hit her right arm, as a result of which, she sustained injuries. When he went to rescue his wife, accused Baldev Singh threw Drat on one side and thereafter, other accused persons asked accused Baldev Singh to give a blow of drat on him. Accused Baldev Singh gave a blow of Drat on him, which hit him, on his head and as a result he suffered injuries on his head and blood started oozing out from his head. He further mentioned that as a result of said injuries, he fell down. At that time, Balo Devi, Mathura and Babli Devi, Anju Devi, Bimla Devi, Raj Kumar son of Sukh Ram also came on the spot and thereafter, complainant was taken to the Police Station alongwith his wife. He was sent to Regional Hospital, Bilaspur, for treatment and his statement was recorded by the police. At that time, Balo Devi, Mathura and Babli Devi, Anju Devi, Bimla Devi, Raj Kumar son of Sukh Ram also came on the spot and thereafter, complainant was taken to the Police Station alongwith his wife. He was sent to Regional Hospital, Bilaspur, for treatment and his statement was recorded by the police. In his cross-examination he has admitted that there is a land dispute between him and accused Piar Singh and the matter was pending in the Court of law. He has also admitted that there was a stay order passed against him in the suit by the Court concerned and an application for violation of the Court order also stood filed against him. He had further admitted the suggestion that his daughter-in-law Promila had filed a complaint under Section 354, 323, 506 I.P.C. against him with the police and that Bimla Devi his sister-in-law and Raj Kumar his nephew had also lodged FIR against him in the Police Station for beating them up. He had further admitted that his another nephew Sanjiv Kumar had also filed report against him under Section 324 I.P.C. in the Police Station. 11. PW-2 Santosh Kumari had corroborated the version of her husband and had stated that she heard some noise and saw that her husband was in the courtyard of the house. The accused were throwing stones at her husband and he was crying. She has further deposed that accused Baldev Singh and Piar Singh dragged her and she resisted the same. As per her, accused Baldev Singh inflicted a blow of Drat on her right arm. When her husband tried to rescue her, accused Baldev Singh inflicted a blow of Drat on the head of her husband. According to her, Bimla Devi, Raj Kumar, Anju and Babli came there and her husband was brought to Police Station and from there they went to the hospital. She further deposed that her husband remained admitted in the hospital for 22 days. She has denied the suggestion that she and her husband attacked Baldev Singh and Onkar when they were cutting grass and collecting stones from their land. She has also denied the suggestion that she pelted stones and gave beatings to Onkar accused with Danda. 12. She further deposed that her husband remained admitted in the hospital for 22 days. She has denied the suggestion that she and her husband attacked Baldev Singh and Onkar when they were cutting grass and collecting stones from their land. She has also denied the suggestion that she pelted stones and gave beatings to Onkar accused with Danda. 12. PW-3 Bimla Devi stated that on the date of the incident, at around 5.00 P.M. in the evening when she was in her house, she heard noise from the house of Joginder Singh and on this, she went to the spot and saw that accused and Joginder Singh were abusing each other and were quarrelling with each other. She further deposed that Joginder Singh was lying on the ground and was also bleeding, but she feigned ignorance as to who had beaten Joginder Singh. She also mentioned that at the relevant time she only saw accused Piar Singh at the spot and had not seen any other accused. As she was declared hostile, accordingly, she was subjected to cross-examination. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that accused Baldev Singh was having a Drat in his hand and other accused were beating Joginder Singh and his wife. She also denied that accused Baldev Singh inflicted a blow of Drat on Joginder Singh and when accused saw her, they ran away. 13. PW-4 Babli Devi has deposed that on the fateful day at around 5.00 P.M. she was working in the fields and heard cries of Joginder Singh. She accordingly rushed towards his house where she saw accused Baldev Singh inflicting blow of Drat on Joginder Singh, on his head and as a result of which, Jogidner Singh fell down on the ground and blood started oozing out from his head. She has also stated that Joginder Singh’s wife also suffered injuries on her arm and that accused persons were pelting stones and threatening to kill Joginder Singh and his wife. Incidentally this witness is related to complainant. 14. PW-5 Raj Kumar has deposed that at about 5.00 P.M. on 26.07.2005, he came to the spot after he heard some noise. He has further stated that no occurrence took place in his presence. However, he has stated that he saw Joginder Singh in an injured condition in his courtyard. Incidentally this witness is related to complainant. 14. PW-5 Raj Kumar has deposed that at about 5.00 P.M. on 26.07.2005, he came to the spot after he heard some noise. He has further stated that no occurrence took place in his presence. However, he has stated that he saw Joginder Singh in an injured condition in his courtyard. He was also declared hostile and in his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the accused were pelting stones upon Jogidner Singh and were beating him and that accused Baldev Singh inflicted a blow of Drat on the head of Joginder Singh. 15. PW-12 Dr. A.K. Sharma conducted the medical examination of Jogidner Singh. He has opined that injuries No.1 to 4 suffered by the complainant were simple in nature. Incidentally, though this witness has mentioned that injury No. 1 was caused by sharp edged weapon and injuries No. 2 to 4 were caused by blunt weapon but he has also deposed that Drat Ext. P-5 was not the same Drat which was shown to him on 31.08.2005 at the time of obtaining his opinion. In his cross-examination, he had stated that injury No. 1 caused to Joginder Singh was possible in the snatching process of sharp edged sickle and all the injuries were possible in a scuffle. Incidentally, PW-2 Santosh Kumari also failed to recognize Drat Ext.P-5 when she appeared in the witness box. 16. After taking into consideration the statements of the witnesses as well as other material produced on record, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the version of the prosecution witnesses casts a serious doubt on truthfulness of the case of the prosecution and it was satisfied that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons. 17. We have perused the said judgment. According to us, all aspects of the matter have been minutely discussed by the learned trial Court. It is after appreciation of the material on record placed by the prosecution that the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 18. Further in our considered view, there are major contradictions in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, which belie the truthfulness of the depositions of these witnesses. 18. Further in our considered view, there are major contradictions in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, which belie the truthfulness of the depositions of these witnesses. PW-1 Joginder Singh has deposed that accused Piar Singh came towards him with Drat and other accused caught hold of his wife Santosh Kumari. He further stated that accused Onkar Singh and Nikki Devi continued pelting stones on him and while dragging his wife, accused Baldev Singh gave a blow of Drat to his wife on the asking of accused Piar Singh, as a result of which, she sustained injuries on her right arm. He has further stated that when he went to rescue his wife, accused Bladev Singh threw Drat on one side and thereafter, he gave a blow of Drat to the complainant on the asking of other accused persons. However, PW-2 wife of the complainant has deposed that accused Baldev Singh inflicted a blow of Drat on her right arm and when her husband tried to rescue her, accused Baldev Singh inflicted a blow of Drat on the head of her husband. Thus, there is a complete contrast in the narration of the incident by PW-1 and PW-2. 19. PW-2 had not deposed that accused persons caught hold of her or that while dragging her accused Piar Singh asked accused Baldev Singh to give a blow of Drat on her. She has further not deposed that the complainant was hit with the blow of Drat by accused Baldev Singh on the asking of other accused persons. 20. Incidentally, these two witnesses are interested witnesses and are not independent witnesses. Therefore, a close scrutiny of their statements is of utmost importance. When the statement of the complainant made under Section 154 Cr.P.C. is seen viz-a-viz his deposition made in the Court, it is apparent that he has improved his version while appearing as a witness in the Court. In these circumstances, trustworthiness of this witness becomes suspicious. Therefore, it creates doubt in the mind of this Court with regard to the credibility of the story of the prosecution. All this becomes very important and relevant keeping in view the fact that the complainant and the accused are neighbours and admittedly there is a land dispute going on between the two. Further, the complainant seems to be chronic complaint maker as is apparent and evident from his own statement. All this becomes very important and relevant keeping in view the fact that the complainant and the accused are neighbours and admittedly there is a land dispute going on between the two. Further, the complainant seems to be chronic complaint maker as is apparent and evident from his own statement. He has admitted to have filed various complaints in the police against his own relatives. This conduct of the complainant can also not be lost sight of by this Court. 21. Similarly, PW-4 Babli Devi is also an interested witness because she admittedly is related to Joginder Singh i.e. the complainant. PW-3 and PW-5, who are independent witnesses, have not corroborated the version of the prosecution. This Court is not oblivious to the facts that it is not necessary that in each and every case the story of the prosecution can be believed only if it is substantiated by independent witnesses but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 do not inspire any confidence. 22. As we have already mentioned above, even the learned trial Court had taken all these facts into consideration and thereafter, it has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonably doubt. 23. According to us also, the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of the accused. We further find that there is neither any infirmity or perversity in the findings which have been returned by the learned trial Court on the basis of the appreciation of material placed before it by the prosecution. Therefore, we uphold the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and dismiss the appeal being without merit. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.