Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 852 (JK)

State of J&K v. Ram Lal

2017-09-14

ALOK ARADHE, B.S.WALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : This Criminal Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 25.01.2014 passed by the trial court, by which the respondents have been acquitted of offences under sections 307, 325, 147, 148, 149 RPC. 2. The prosecution story in nutshell is that on 13.05.2004, the injured (five in number) and the complainant were cultivating their field. At 10.00 am, the accused armed with laties, sharp edged weapons, came on spot in furtherance of a common object assaulted and injured them. It is the case of the prosecution that respondent No. 1 hit the complainant on his head with the ‘Dharat’ and one of the assailants Kaka, hit injured Sheela Devi on her head with the ‘Dharat’. Respondent, Yodh Singh hit a lathi on the head of injured Bachan Lal. Respondent, Jagdish Raj attacked injured Waryam Chand with a sharp weapon and the respondent Ram Lal assaulted injured Sharda Devi with a Lathi and other accused also beat the injured with hands and fists. On the basis of aforesaid report, First Information Report was lodged for offences under sections 307, 325, 147, 148, 149 RPC against the respondents and investigation commenced. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was presented in the Court against the respondents for the offences as aforesaid. 3. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 10 witnesses, whereas respondents in defence have not led any evidence. The trial court vide impugned judgment has acquitted the respondents of the aforesaid offences. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its correct perspective, which has resulted in erroneous findings and consequent judgment. It is further submitted that counter case is still pending and this appeal be deferred till counter case is decided. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment passed by the trial court and submitted that complainant is acquitted in the counter case. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, there was dispute with regard to land between the parties since long and the disputed property initially belonged to late Anant Ram. The litigation between the parties for aforesaid land is pending before the Court. Anant Ram was the owner of the land, who has executed will in favour of Jodh Singh. Admittedly, there was dispute with regard to land between the parties since long and the disputed property initially belonged to late Anant Ram. The litigation between the parties for aforesaid land is pending before the Court. Anant Ram was the owner of the land, who has executed will in favour of Jodh Singh. PW-Ishar Dass claims to be the son of late Anant Ram and asserts his right to the property of Anant Ram on the basis of succession. In the First information report, the assailants have been named as Jodh Singh, Basant Singh, Kaka, Jagdish alias Kuko, Balbir Chand, Puru Devi and Ram Lal. The identity of Kaka and Jagdish is doubtful as per the FIR. 6. The informant PW Ishar Dass has deposed the names of assailants as accused Nos. 1, 2, 6 & 7 and in addition to them he named Kaka, Papu, and Jagdish. Therefore, true identity of assailants is not ascertained from his evidence. PW Bobby Ram is another witness, who has stated that 5/6 accused came on spot and indulged in assault. Thus, his evidence is also contradictory with regard to identity of the assailant. PW Dhanpat implicates all the accused and by doing so, he is silent about Kaka, Jagdish and Pappy, who were named by the Complainant Ishar Dass. PW Sharda Devi one of the injured names assailants as accused Nos. 2, 6 & 7. In addition, she names Kaka, Lal, Ganeshu and Papu. Thus, this creates confusion with regard to identity of the accused persons. Similarly, PW Sheelo Devi also names Jagdish Kaka and Papu, apart from other accused. PW Waryam Singh injured also stated that Kaka and Jagdish were also among assailants. Thus, almost all the material witnesses have named some persons as assailants, whose names do not figure in the array of accused and in their place some other persons stand arraigned. 7. It is also pertinent to mention that two FIRs were lodged and two cross cases were registered. Respondents in the instant case claims to be the victims of assault launched by complainant party and in the second case, three persons were facing trial from complainant side. The trial court has held that the respondents have exercised their right of private defence of the complainant to counter in their property. Respondents in the instant case claims to be the victims of assault launched by complainant party and in the second case, three persons were facing trial from complainant side. The trial court has held that the respondents have exercised their right of private defence of the complainant to counter in their property. It is also pertinent to mention that all the witnesses which were examined by the prosecution are related to each other. There is material contradiction with regard to names of the assailants and weapons used in the commission of offence and the manner in which they were used. The trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and acquitted the respondents of the offence alleged against him. 8. The trial court has recorded the findings, which are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence available on record. It is well settled in law that this Court while hearing an acquittal appeal can re-appreciate the evidence, however, it should not interfere with the order of acquittal if the view taken by the trial court is also a reasonable view of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial court are not manifestly erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record or perverse (see Ram Swaroop and others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 13 SCC 134, Vijay Kumar v. State by Inspector General, (2009) 12 SCC 629 and Upendra Pradhan vs. State of Orissa ( 2015 11 SCC 124 . 9. From perusal of the judgment of the trial court, we find that the findings recorded by the trial court can neither be termed as perverse, contrary to the evidence or erroneous, therefore, no case for interference in this acquittal appeal is made out. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.