Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1764 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kuldeep Singh

2018-10-01

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J. 1. The present appeal is maintained by the appellant/State laying challenge to judgment dated 29.03.2006, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 205-II/2001, whereby the respondents/accused (hereinafter referred to as "the accused persons") were acquitted for the offences under Sections 325, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). 2. The background facts giving rise for culmination of the case against the accused persons can tersely be summarized as under: As per the prosecution story, on 22.10.2000 complainant, Shri Milap Chand, got recorded his statement with the police under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The complainant stated therein that on 21.10.2000 when he was on leave and in his house, his wife told him that complainant's brother, Kuldeep Singh, his wife Sudesh Kumari, Mulkh Raj (brother-in-law of Kuldeep Singh), Balbir Singh and Nathu Ram (the accused persons) are asking for him. The complainant has further averred that when he met the accused persons, accused Nathu Ram started beating him with a stick and other accused persons thrashed him with fist blows. On hearing the noise, wife of the complainant, Smt. Praveen Kumari, tried to rescue him, but she was also thrashed. The accused persons also threatened to eliminate the complainant. As per the complainant, the accused persons gave beatings to him and his wife owing to land dispute. On the anvil of the statement of the complainant, a case was registered by the police and the investigation ensued. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared the spot map. The complainant produced a blood stained shirt, which was taken into possession. The complainant was medically examined and his medico legal certificate and dental opinion was procured. After completion of the investigation, challan was prepared and presented in the Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as eight witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they pleaded not guilty. The accused persons did not lead any evidence in their defence. 4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 29.03.2006, acquitted the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, hence the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/State. 5. The accused persons did not lead any evidence in their defence. 4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 29.03.2006, acquitted the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, hence the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/State. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence correctly and the accused persons have been acquitted on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He has further argued that the learned Trial Court has not correctly applied the law. The prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Conversely, the learned counsel for the accused persons has argued that the learned Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and the judgment of acquittal is well reasoned. He has further argued that there is nothing on record which could remotely establish the guilt of the accused persons. He has argued that the judgment of acquittal needs no interference, so the appeal be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the accused persons be convicted after re-appreciating the evidence, as the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence correctly. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties we have gone through the record carefully. 8. It is emanating from the records that PW-1, Dr. Sunita Kundu, medically examined the complainant. This witness noticed injuries on the person of the complainant and issued medico legal certificate, Ex. PW-1/A. As per this witness, the nature of weapon for inflicting injuries was blunt. She referred the complainant for Dental Surgeon, who opined that injuries No. 1 and 2 are grievous and the rest of the injuries are simple in nature. This witness has further deposed that injuries No. 1, 2 and 8 could be possible with fist blows. She has further deposed that injuries No. 3 and 7 can be possible if a person falls. This witness, in her cross-examination, has deposed that in case fist blow is give on mouth, then there is likelihood that the injury can be sustained on lips. She admitted that she did not mention, in the medico legal certificate, qua any injury on the lips of the complainant. 9. PW-2, Dr. This witness, in her cross-examination, has deposed that in case fist blow is give on mouth, then there is likelihood that the injury can be sustained on lips. She admitted that she did not mention, in the medico legal certificate, qua any injury on the lips of the complainant. 9. PW-2, Dr. Sandeep Sharma, deposed that on 22.10.2000 the complainant was medically examined by PW-1, Dr. Sunita Kundu, who referred the complainant to him for his dental examination. He, after examining the complainant, gave his dental opinion, Ex. PW-2/A. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that injuries mentioned in Ex. PW-2/A could be possible due to fall. He has further deposed that the patient (complainant) was having poor dental hygiene. The police or the complainant did not produce any teeth before him. 10. The complainant examined himself as PW-3. He has deposed that on 22.10.2000, around 09:30 a.m., when he was sleeping in a room, his wife informed him that accused persons have come and they are asking for him. He has further deposed that when he came outside, accused Mulkh Raj gave a fist blow, resultantly his two teeth were broken. Accused Nathu ram gave a stick blow and other accused persons gave beatings to him. As per the complainant, his wife, Parveen Kumari and son, Adarsh, witnessed the occurrence. Subsequently, he got recorded FIR, Ex. PW-3/A, and he was medically examined. Police took into possession his blood stained shirt vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-3/B. He has deposed that the broken teeth could not be traced, so the same could not be handed over to the police. The complainant, in his cross-examination, has deposed that the house of the accused persons is at Garli, which is about 40 kilometers from his house. He has further deposed he and his brother have a joint house. He deposed that his son, Adarsh, rescued him, but he has not deposed so in his statement given to the police. He has further deposed that his teeth were broken, but again he did not state this fact before the police. The complainant seems to have exaggerated the facts and his version, if scrutinized meticulously, shows major improvements. He has deposed that the accused persons gave him beatings for half an hour. He deposed that the accused persons gagged his mouth. He has further deposed that his teeth were broken, but again he did not state this fact before the police. The complainant seems to have exaggerated the facts and his version, if scrutinized meticulously, shows major improvements. He has deposed that the accused persons gave him beatings for half an hour. He deposed that the accused persons gagged his mouth. The complainant has himself deposed that his house is joint with his brother and the occurrence took place on the verandha of his house. Surprisingly, as per the complainant the accused persons gave beatings to him for half an hour, but no one from the house of his brother came to rescue him. He denied that on 22.10.2000, at about 09:10 a.m. his wife thrashed accused Kuldeep with slippers, as he was trying to cultivate complainant's land. He has further denied that he also hit accused with fist blows owing to his teeth were broken. He denied that accused Kuldeep was taken to hospital for medical examination. This witness denied the suggestion that he himself went to dentist and got uprooted his teeth. He further denied that he reported to the police the time of occurrence as 04:30 p.m. He feigned his ignorance that accused Mulk Raj deposed against him in departmental inquiry, which was initiated by the department as he remained absent for 501 days. 11. The complainant's son, Adarsh (PW-4) is child witness. He deposed that on the day of occurrence he was playing in his courtyard, his mother was cooking and father was sleeping. He has further deposed that accused Mulkh Raj came and his mother called his father. When his father extended his hand for hand shake, accused Mulkh Raj gave a fist blow on the lips of his father and two incisors of his father got broken. Thereafter, all the accused persons started beating his father and his mother tried to rescue him. The accused persons took his father to a room and thrashed him. While leaving the house, the accused persons also threatened to eliminate his father. This witness has categorically deposed that accused Balbir Singh was carrying a knife in his hand. This witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that on the day of occurrence it was Sunday. He admitted that there is land dispute amongst his father and the accused persons. He deposed that he saw the broken teeth of his father. 12. This witness has categorically deposed that accused Balbir Singh was carrying a knife in his hand. This witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that on the day of occurrence it was Sunday. He admitted that there is land dispute amongst his father and the accused persons. He deposed that he saw the broken teeth of his father. 12. PW-5, Smt. Pan Devi (mother of the complainant), deposed that the accused persons broke three teeth of the complainant and no one rescued him. This witness, in her cross-examination, further exaggerated the story by deposing that the back of the complainant was bleeding due to knife injury. She further deposed that she saw the broken teeth of the complainant, which was kept by him in his pocket. This witness has specifically admitted that she is deposing at the instance of the complainant. 13. PW-6, Shri Hoshiar Singh, admitted his signatures on seizure memo Ex. PW-3/B, but he denied as to whose shirt, Ex. PW-1, is. This witness was declared hostile and subject to cross-examination, however, nothing favourable to the prosecution could be elicited from him. 14. PW-7, HC Kuldeep Kumar, and PW-8, HC Suresh Kumar, are official prosecution witnesses. PW-8, HC Suresh Kumar, admits that during the course of investigation no case was made out against accused Balbir Singh and his name was falsely implicated. When accused Kuldeep was arrested, there was fresh injury on his mouth. 15. The case of the prosecution mainly revolves around the statements of complainant (PW-3), his son Adarsh (PW-4) and Smt. Pan Dei (PW-5, mother of the complainant). No doubt, all the above witnesses are interested witnesses. As noticed above there are major flaws in the testimonies of all these witnesses and all these witnesses have portrayed the occurrence differently. As per the prosecution case, the complainant sustained injury with fist blow due to which his two incisors were broken. However, if it is believed to correct that there must be corresponding injuries on the lips of the complainant. The doctor did not observe any injuries on the lips of the complainant. Conversely, the doctor has specifically deposed that the complainant was having poor dental hygiene and his incisors might have been removed earlier. There are major contradictions in the versions of the complainant and his mother qua the broken teeth. The doctor did not observe any injuries on the lips of the complainant. Conversely, the doctor has specifically deposed that the complainant was having poor dental hygiene and his incisors might have been removed earlier. There are major contradictions in the versions of the complainant and his mother qua the broken teeth. As per the complainant, he could not find his broken incisors, where as his mother stated that broken incisors were picked up and put by the complainant inside his pocket. The police did not recover any teeth and produce the same before the Court. As per the deposition of prosecution witnesses, one of the accused was having knife and he administered knife blow on the person of the complainant, however, the prosecution has failed to produce the said knife in the Court. The prosecution has further failed to prove knife injury on the person of the complainant. 16. The evidence, if read in juxtaposition with prosecution case, clearly shows that there are major discrepancies in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, which cannot be made basis for convicting the accused persons. The versions of interested prosecution witnesses have inconsistencies and in fact all these witnesses tried to make improvements through their depositions. 17. The net result of the above discussion is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused persons, thus they cannot be convicted. The accused persons have been rightly acquitted by the learned trial Court and it is not possible to hold that the learned Trial Court's view is perverse. Hence, there is nothing to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned Trial Court. 18. In view of the above, it is more than safe to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons and the findings of acquittal, as recorded by the learned Trial Court, needs no interference, as the same are the result of appreciating the facts and law correctly and to their true perspective. Accordingly, the appeal, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is dismissed. 19. In view of the above, the appeal, so also pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. Bail bonds are cancelled.