Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 171 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Hardev Singh

2017-03-15

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. 1. The present appeal is maintained by the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of acquittal of accused in a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 325, 324, 323, 341 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. II, Amb, District Una, (H.P.) dated 29.9.2007, in Criminal Case No. 117-I-2000/107-II of 2000. 2. Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 18.6.2000, Station House Officer, Police Station Amb, alongwith Head Constable Suresh Kumar and other Police personnel was on patrolling duty at Amb Chowk, when a wireless information was received that two parties had a fight at village Takarla and the injured of one party have been restrained by other party. On this, Station House Officer arranged for a vehicle and reached at the spot and found that some women were sitting on the road. On seeking the police party, they fled away from the spot. Complainant Jagdish Ram, his wife Kamla Devi and son Vijay Singh, were in their home in injured condition and were taken to Primary Health Centre, Amb, for medical treatment. Their MLCs were obtained. Statement of complainant Jagdish Ram under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Complainant stated that on 18.6.2000 at around 3:00 pm, he alongwith his son Vijay Singh was ploughing their fields in Khasra Nos. 1008, 1010, 1011, 1014, 1015 and 1016 with tractor. Accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and came on the spot. Accused Hardev Singh and Nirmala Devi were armed with sickle and stick. Accused Kuldeep Singh was also present on the spot and asked Vijay Singh to stop ploughing the tractor and on objection of complainant, be laboured the complainant on his right arm. Accused Hardev Singh and Nirmala Devi attacked them with sickle and other accused attacked them with sticks. The complainant and his son raised alarm, upon which Kamla Devi and her daughter-in-law Rano Devi came on the spot for their rescue. Kamla Devi was caused injury with sickle by Nirmla Devi. Thereafter, people of the locality gathered on the spot. It is further stated that a drain adjoins their private land and Chanan Singh etc. blocked their drain and moved an application to Deputy Commissioner, Una and also kept cultivating his land. Due to this, accused have attacked and caused hurt. Kamla Devi was caused injury with sickle by Nirmla Devi. Thereafter, people of the locality gathered on the spot. It is further stated that a drain adjoins their private land and Chanan Singh etc. blocked their drain and moved an application to Deputy Commissioner, Una and also kept cultivating his land. Due to this, accused have attacked and caused hurt. Accused have restrained them from getting the first aid and reported the matter to the police. Statement of witnesses were recorded and site plan was prepared. Weapon of offence was also taken into possession by the police. The vehicle in question was taken into possession by the police and photographs were prepared. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as sixteen witnesses. Statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, wherein they have denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. Accused persons led their evidence in defence. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, but the learned Court below on the basis of surmises and conjectures has acquitted the accused and the present is a fit case, where the accused is liable to be convicted after setting aside the judgment of acquittal. 5. On the other hand, Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, as there was no evidence to connect the injuries with the alleged recovered weapon of offence. The recovery is full of suspicious and otherwise also the land on which the alleged occurrence has taken place, is in the occupation and possession of the accused. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has also argued that the learned Court below has failed to take into consideration the material aspects of the case and has not considered the vital evidence and the judgment is perverse. 7. To appreciate the arguments of learned Deputy Advocate General and learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the record in detail and minutely scrutinized the statements of the witnesses. 8. 7. To appreciate the arguments of learned Deputy Advocate General and learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the record in detail and minutely scrutinized the statements of the witnesses. 8. Shri Jagdish Ram, complainant, while appearing as PW-1, has deposed that he alongwith his son was ploughing their fields with tractor, when accused came on the spot and asked his son not to cultivate the land. He has deposed that when he refused, accused persons attacked them. He has deposed that when accused persons restrained them to get medical aid and to report the matter to the police, he telephoned Sada Ram his uncle, who came on the spot with jeep bearing No. HP-19-1729. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that accused and complainant party are in dispute for the last 4-5 years on account of the land in dispute. He has further admitted that one cross case qua the alleged occurrence was made out against the complainant party. He has denied that the place of occurrence is in possession of the accused by cultivation of ‘Chery’ crop. He has deposed that 5-6 villagers came on the spot, but the same were not witness to the fight. He has deposed that accused Kuldeep hurt him with stick in the presence of his wife and daughter-in-law. PW-2 Vijay Singh-injured has deposed on the same line as PW-1 and he has also admitted there was a cross case of same occurrence has been made out against the complainant party. He has denied that the accused are cultivating ‘Cherry’ crop on the place of occurrence. He has deposed that the occurrence took place towards the South of his house and not towards the West of his house. He has admitted that such injuries were not disclosed to the police. PW-3 Kamla Devi, mother of PW-2 and wife of PW-1, also supported the version of PW-1 and PW-2. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that accused have cultivated the ‘Cherry’ crop on the place of occurrence and deposed that accused have forcibly cultivated the same. She has admitted that police recorded her statement on the narration and desire of her husband. She has further admitted that she is giving her deposition on the basis of said statement. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that accused have cultivated the ‘Cherry’ crop on the place of occurrence and deposed that accused have forcibly cultivated the same. She has admitted that police recorded her statement on the narration and desire of her husband. She has further admitted that she is giving her deposition on the basis of said statement. She has deposed that during fight no villager reached at the spot and then stated that 15/18 women were accompanying the accused who belonged to the family of the accused. She has further deposed that her nephew Baldev was also came on the spot. PW-4, Sada Ram has deposed that complainant telephonically disclosed about the alleged occurrence to him. He has also admitted that Baldev Singh is related to him and further deposed that when he reached at the spot with jeep, Baldev Singh and other persons of the village were not present there. PW-5 Rakesh Kumar has deposed that on 18.6.2000, Sada Ram (PW-4) booked his jeep bearing No. HP-19-1729 for going to Takarla, when he reached at the spot alongwith Sada Ram, 2-3 persons in injured condition were present. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he brought the injured to Police Station, Amb at around 4:45 pm and took them back from Police Station at about 9:00/9:30 pm. The medical evidence of Dr. S.K. Verma (PW-11) has deposed that on 18.6.2000 at about 9:30 pm, he examined Kamla Devi (PW-3) and opined simple injuries on her person. He has deposed that injury No. 1 can be caused with sickle and injury no. 2 can be caused with stick. He has further deposed at about 9:40 pm, he examined Jagdish Ram (PW-1) and opined that two injuries on his person, of which one was simple and another was grievous, caused within the same duration. He has also examined Vijay Singh (PW-2) and opined four simple injuries caused within the same duration. He has deposed that these injuries are possible with stick blow. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the injuries on the person of Kamla Devi (PW-3), is a result of self infliction, whereas the injury on the person of Vijay Singh (PW-2) and Jagdish Ram (PW-1), can result by fall on hard surface. 9. It is on the record that it was a cross FIR and the injuries was also on the person of the accused. 9. It is on the record that it was a cross FIR and the injuries was also on the person of the accused. Since it is admitted fact that there was also injuries on the person of accused and as a result of which, another cross case was initiated, the only thing to be deciphered is that whether accused were aggressor in the present case or the injuries on the person of the complainant are result of scuffle to prevent the complainant party from forcibly ploughing the land of accused by tractor. The demarcation report Ex.PW10/A further proved on record that the land where the occurrence took place is not the land of complainant. The said demarcation report further revealed that the place of occurrence is comprised in Khasra No. 1012, 1013, 1017 to 1020, 1077, 1079 to 1082, 1095. Jamabandis Ex.PW10/B and Ex.PW10/C also shows that the complainant is not owner-in-possession of the said land. Hence, it stands proved that the complainant and his son were not ploughing their land, but were ploughing the land in possession of accused party. PW-14 ASI Jaswinder Singh, in his cross-examination admitted that during demarcation the place of occurrence was found to be of the accused. PW-2 Vijay Singh has deposed that his wife Rano Devi was also beaten by accused and she sustained injury. He has admitted that such disclosure was not made to the police. PW-2 and PW-3 have also deposed that the place where the occurrence took place is on the Southern side of their house and not on the Western side, which fact is contrary to the site plan Ex.PW16/A. PW-3 deposed that 15/18 women were present on the spot alongwith accused and were from the family of the accused. She has further deposed that her statement recorded by the police was as narrated by her husband. PW-5 Rakesh Kumar has denied that when he reached at the spot, accused party have restrained them. Rather, he has deposed that he reached alongwith the complainant and others at Police Station at about 4:45 pm and brought them back from the Police Station at about 9:30 pm. Further, it has come in the evidence that the injuries on the person of Kamla Devi (PW-3) can be self conflicted. Rather, he has deposed that he reached alongwith the complainant and others at Police Station at about 4:45 pm and brought them back from the Police Station at about 9:30 pm. Further, it has come in the evidence that the injuries on the person of Kamla Devi (PW-3) can be self conflicted. It has also come on record that the land was in occupation and possession of the accused, where the alleged occurrence has taken place. All these facts goes to show that the story of prosecution is full of suspicious and no conviction can be based on such suspicious evidence. 10. 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/mis-appreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 11. 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. 12. The net result of the above discussion is that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused conclusively and beyond reasonable doubt. There is no illegality and infirmity in the findings, so recorded by the learned trial Court. 13. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and discussion made hereinabove, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.