Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1043 (HP)

Ram Sorup Chauhan v. Devi Lal

2018-05-31

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J —The complainant/victim, is aggrieved, by the order, of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court, vis-a-vis the accused, while rendering, a pronouncement upon a Cr. Case No. 602 of 2011. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 29.10.2010 at about 11.30 a.m., near Devi Mandi, Rangol, Shimla, when the complainant Ram Swaroop was working in his field with JCB Machine, accused, namely, Devi Lal, Shish Ram, Kalawati, Sheela, Minakshi and Soraj, armed with sticks, wrongfully restrained the complainant from the the said work and confined the complainant and his wife inside their house. The accused gave beatings to the complainant and his wife and caused simple injuries on their person. The matter was reported to the police. The Police recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., to the aforesaid effect and recorded the FIR. After registrations of the FIR, the police completed all the codal formalities. 3. On conclusion of the investigation, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared, and, filed before the learned trial Court. 4. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court for theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 342 read with Section 149 of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein, the accused claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused/respondents herein. 6. The complainant/informant, stands, aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused/respondents. He, has concertedly, and, vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal warranting reversal by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs standing replaced by findings of conviction. 7. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal warranting reversal by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs standing replaced by findings of conviction. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondents herein, has with considerable force and vigour, also contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court rather standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The informant/complainant, while stepping into the witness box, as PW-4, has, in his testification made echoings in concurrence, with, all the recitals, borne in Ex.PW4/A, and, in Ex.PW7/A. His testification is lent succor by PW-9, one Yashwant Singh, his relative. However, PW-1, PW-5 and PW-10, all reneged, from their, respectively recorded previous statements, in writing. During the course of theirs being declared hostile, on a request, made by the APP concerned, whereafter, they were subjected, to an ordeal, of, an exacting cross-examination, hence, by the APP concerned, yet therein nothing emerged from each, for hence an inference being recorded, qua their respective, renegings, from, their previous statements recorded, in writing being falsified or theirs hence lending vigour, to the genesis of the prosecution case, embodied in Ex.PW7/A. 10. Be that as it may, mere factum of PW-1, PW-5 and PW-10, the purported independent witnesses, to the occurrence, respectively reneging, from, their previous statements, recorded in writing, may not hence coax, any inference, from this Court, qua the versions hence respectively deposed by PW-4 and PW9, being discardable, (i) merely, on anvil of PW-9, being related to PW-4, hence, his testifying an interested version qua the occurrence, (ii) unless, the testification rendered, by PW-4, and, by PW-9 are also established, to acquire succor, from the MLC borne in Ex.PW12/A, and, from the recitals borne in Ex.PW4/B, whereunder, the clothes, of the complainant, and, two sticks were handed over, by the complainant, to, the investigating officer concerned. Also when evidence surges forth, in display, of Ex.PW4/B, being proven, to be, validly and efficaciously recorded. 11. Nowat, the apposite MLC, comprised in Ex.PW12/A, proven by PW-12, merely makes, a, disclosure of simple injuries, occurring, on the person of the complainant. Also when evidence surges forth, in display, of Ex.PW4/B, being proven, to be, validly and efficaciously recorded. 11. Nowat, the apposite MLC, comprised in Ex.PW12/A, proven by PW-12, merely makes, a, disclosure of simple injuries, occurring, on the person of the complainant. The aforesaid factum, does assume critical importance, given the complainant, making vivid echoings, of all the accused being armed with sticks, and each repeatedly with users thereof, belabouring him, (i) importantly when the closest and utmost compatibility inter se hence the user of sticks by each of the accused, on the person of the complainant, vis-a-vis, the injuries occurring, upon, his person, was a dire proven necessity, (ii) whereas, despite the complainant, making, vivid echoings, of each, of the accused, being armed with sticks, and, each with user thereof belabouring him, yet with occurrence merely of simple injuries, on his person, injuries whereof, are, depicted in Ex.PW12/A, does, contrarily boost an inference, qua there occurring, a rife incompatibility, inter se, the users, of, sticks by each of the accused, upon, the person of the complainant, vis- a-vis, the minimal injuries occurring therein, (iii) besides, obviously the further concomitant sequel, being of, all the ascriptions, by, the complainant vis-avis each of the accused, qua theirs respectively being armed with sticks, hence, each belabouring him, with blows thereof, necessarily, falling in the realm of skepticism. 12. Apart therefrom, the complainant was also enjoined, to prove efficacious recovery, of, sticks, by the Investigating Officer, at the instance, of each of the accused. Apparently, hereat the sticks, purportedly used, by each of the accused, for, theirs hence belabouring, the victim/complainant, were not recovered, under any apt recovery memo, signatured by each of the accused, nor preceding therewith, the apt disclosure statements, of each of the accused, were recorded. However, the complainant/victim, under memo Ex.PW4/B, handed over this clothes, and, two sticks, to, the Investigating Officer, handing(s) over whereof, occurred on 31.10.2010, whereas, the relevant incident, occurred, two days prior thereto, inasmuch as, on 29.10.2010. However, the complainant/victim, under memo Ex.PW4/B, handed over this clothes, and, two sticks, to, the Investigating Officer, handing(s) over whereof, occurred on 31.10.2010, whereas, the relevant incident, occurred, two days prior thereto, inasmuch as, on 29.10.2010. Even if, despite the afore referred, omission, of the Investigating Officer concerned, assumingly, any efficacy is to be imputed vis-a-vis Ex.PW4/B, yet imputation of any efficacy thereto, may be sustainable, only, when the handing(s) over, of the blood stained clothes, and, sticks by the complainant/victim, to, the Investigating Officer, were made in prompt sequel to the incident, or the sticks were evidently found at the site of occurrence, whereupon, reiteratedly, the apposite recoveries, made, under memo Ex.PW4/B, would acquire some probative tenacity. Contrarily, hereat, with, apparent belated handing(s) over, of, sticks, and, of the blood stained clothes, by the complainant, to, the Investigating Officer, hence, rather occurring, does, dispel all efficacies thereof, (i) rather enables, this Court to erect, an inference, of, the sticks, being not found at the site of occurrence, rather their handing over by the complainant, to the Investigating Officer, being a sequel of sheer contrivance besides invention, (ii) rendering, all, the recitals, in respect thereof, borne in Ex.PW4/B, to be unworthy of any credence, (iii) AND, also with the complainant handing over two sticks, to the Investigating Officer, whereas, he attributes vis-a-vis each of the accused, incriminatory role(s) of each wielding sticks, with users whereof, they belaboured him also hence stems a conclusion, of there occurring, incompatibility inter se, the sticks handed over by the complainant, to the Investigating Officer, through memo borne in Ex.PW4/B, vis-a-vis, the accused, numbering five, qua each of whom, he, rather imputes qua their belabouring him, with users thereof, (iv) all whereof also remained not recovered nor handed over by them under any aptly prepared memos, vis-a-vis, the Investigating Officer concerned, rather were handed over, under an inefficaciously prepared memo, borne in Ex.PW4/B, by the victim to the Investigating Officer concerned, (v) renders, hence, the prosecution case to be founder. 13. 13. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer has in his cross-examination, acquiesced to a suggestion, of the accused also filing an FIR vis-a-vis the incident, in respect whereof, Ex.PW7/A was lodged, and, he has also acquiesced, to a further suggestion put to him, by the learned defence counsel, during, the course of his being subjected to cross-examination, of his omitting, to make any reference thereto, in the report filed under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., before, the learned Magistrate concerned, (i) nor he is able to bring forth, any apt communication, vis-a-vis, the fate of the cross FIR, lodged by the accused, (ii) whereas, he was enjoined to hold, conjoint investigation(s) , with respect to both the FIRs, and, consequently, the Magistrate concerned, was, also enjoined to hold conjoint trial thereof, (iii) whereupon, also the truth qua the incident would obviously emerge, (iv) absence whereof, contrarily fosters an inference, of, the Investigating Officer, hence, smothering the truth of the occurrence, (v) rendering hence open an inference, qua, the trite factum, of the site of occurrence, receding, into the realm, of skepticism, (vi) besides its becoming extremely hazardous, for this court to form, a clinching conclusion, vis-a-vis, the complainant herein or the complainant, in the cross FIR, lodged with respect to the same occurrence, being the apt aggressor(s) . Reiteratedly, hence, with haziness, and, doubt seeping into the prosecution case, thereupon, the interested testimonies of PW-4, and, of his relative, PW-9, are subsumed, by the testifications rendered, by PW-1, PW5 and by PW-10, besides by the inefficaciously, and, fictitiously prepared Ex.PW4/B. 14. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court, does not suffer, from, a gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record. 15. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.