Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1373 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Suneet Singh

2017-12-13

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present criminal appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been maintained by the State of Himachal Pradesh, against the judgment of acquittal, dated 20.02.2008, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in criminal appeal No. 29/2007, under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be called as “IPC”), whereby the judgment of conviction, dated 19.09.2007, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P., In criminal case No. 17-II of 2001 was set aside. 2. The key facts, giving rise to the present appeal as per the prosecution story are that on 17.01.2001, at about 8:00 a.m. at place Chudhana, Suneet Singh/accused (hereinafter to be called as “the accused”) hit Chandu Ram/complainant (hereinafter to be called as “the complainant”) with three stone blows on his chest and also gave him teeth bite on his right arm, due to which, the complainant got injured. After the said occurrence, the accused was taken to the hospital and got medically examined and his MLC, Ext. PW-4/B was obtained. The matter was reported to the Police and spot map, Ext. PW- 5/C was prepared and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. 3. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as five witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. Accused did not lead any defence evidence. The learned trial Court, vide its judgment, dated 19.09.2007, convicted the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. Subsequently, the accused assailed the said judgment before the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., which was allowed and the judgment of conviction, passed by the learned trial Court was set aside. Hence the present appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 5. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, learned Law Officer has argued that the learned first Appellate Court without appreciating the evidence correctly, has set aside the well reasoned judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned trial Court. Hence the present appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 5. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, learned Law Officer has argued that the learned first Appellate Court without appreciating the evidence correctly, has set aside the well reasoned judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned trial Court. He has further argued that after re-appreciating the evidence which has come on record to its right perspective, the present appeal may be accepted and the impugned judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned first Appellate Court may be set aside by upholding the judgment of conviction, passed by the learned trial Court. On the other hand Mr. Shashi Kant Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, as none of the independent witnesses have supported the prosecution’s case. 6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone through the record carefully. 7. Complainant Chandu Ram, has appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and stated that about 7-8 months back, he was carrying a Gagar of water on his head and going to his house, the accused (who is his real brother) met him near the retaining wall. He asked the accused as to why he got removed the water from his wheat field, upon which, the accused pushed him and he fell down alongwith Gagar and the accused sat on his chest and gave him three stone blows on his chest, the accused also gave him teeth bite on his right arm. As a result of which, he got injured, thereafter the complainant reported the matter to the Police at Police Station, Chowari. The Police came to the spot and took into possession the stone, with which blow was given to the complainant, vide memo Ext. PW-1/A. 8. PW-2, Maghro Ram, has stated that in winter, 2-3 days prior to Lohri, at about 7:00 a.m., when he was going to Banalag for attending a marriage, the complainant and the accused met him on the way and they were shouting. He has further stated that the accused was not having anything with him. This witness has not supported the prosecution case. 9. He has further stated that the accused was not having anything with him. This witness has not supported the prosecution case. 9. PW-3, Karam Chand, has stated that he was present at a distance of half kilometers near the Nallah from where he saw the complainant and the accused quarreling. This witness feigned ignorance, as to who had started the quarrel first. He has further stated that when he reached at the spot, the quarrel was stopped. He has stated that he saw blood oozing out of the complainant and when he asked about the same, the complainant disclosed that the accused had given him beating with stone and also by teeth bite. 10. PW-4, Dr. R.J. Mahajan (Medical Officer, Chowari) has stated that on 17.01.2000, at about 12:30 noon, the complainant was brought to him through Police docket, Ext. PW-4/A and on his personal examination, two injuries were found on his person. He has further stated that nature of the injuries was simple and it can be caused by teeth bite. He proved MLC, Ext. PW-4, having been issued by him. 11. PW-5, Tarsem Singh, HC No. 31, Police station, Chowari, has stated that on 17.01.2001, the complainant got recorded his statement at Police station Chowari, upon which, report No. 9, Ext. PW-1/A, was registered and he was sent for medical examination, vide report No. 11, Ext. PW- 5/A and vide FIR, Ext. PW-5/B, case under Section 324 IPC was registered. MLC, Ext. PW-4/B of the injured was obtained and spot map, Ext. PW-5/C was prepared. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and took into possession, weapon of offence, i.e. stone Ext. P-1. After completion of investigation, the case file was handed over to SHO Jaram Singh. 12. As far as the statement of PW-2 is concerned, he has not supported the prosecution case. Further no recovery of stone has been proved, as it has come on record that the Investigation Officer recovered the stone as one of the stone, with which the injury can be caused. Now coming to the injury caused by the stone, there is nothing on record which suggests that the injury can be related with the stone, so the story of causing injury with the stone has also not been proved by the prosecution. Now coming to the injury caused by the stone, there is nothing on record which suggests that the injury can be related with the stone, so the story of causing injury with the stone has also not been proved by the prosecution. Further the case of the prosecution that the accused gave teeth bite to the complainant also belies, as no independent witness has supported the prosecution case. The entire case of the prosecution hinges on the statement of the complainant, as far as eye witnesses are concerned, PW-2 was turned hostile and PW-3 has seen the occurrence from a distance of half kilometer and could not see as to who had started the quarrel. The testimony of PW-1 has not been supported by any other eye witness and as such, the mere statement of PW-1 cannot result into conviction. 13. From the evidence on record, the conclusion which is likely to be there is that the complainant may have received the injury by fall, as the nature of injury was simple. In these circumstance, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and no case under Section 324 IPC is made out against the accused and the well reasoned judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in appeal, needs no interference. 14. It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 , that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 , has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 16. In Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has culled out the following principles qua powers of the appellate Courts while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal : “42. 16. In Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has culled out the following principles qua powers of the appellate Courts while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal : “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, ‘substantial and compelling reasons’, ‘good and sufficient grounds’, ‘very strong circumstances’, ‘distorted conclusions’, ‘glaring mistakes’, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of ‘flourishes of language’ to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 17. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the discussion made hereinabove, the present appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of.