Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1765 (HP)

Kuldeep Singh v. Milap Chand

2018-10-01

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present appeal is maintained by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") 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. 260-II/2000, whereby the respondents/accused (hereinafter referred to as "the accused persons") were acquitted for the offences under Sections 323, 325, 500 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). 2. The background facts giving rise to culmination of the case against the accused persons can tersely be summarized as under: As per the complainant, the accused persons used to abuse him during his visits to his home. He has further contended that on 22.10.2000, around 9/10:00 a.m., when he was working in his fields, the accused persons came and asked him as to what he was doing. The accused persons gave beatings to him with stick, slippers and fist blows. The complainant was rescued by his wife when he raised hue and cry. In the interregnum, accused Milap Chand gave a fist blow on his mouth and upper side teeth of the complainant got broken. As per the complainant, two passers by also witnessed the occurrence. The accused persons also threatened the complainant to do away with his life. The complainant was shifted to Civil Hospital, Garli, where he was admitted and treated. The police was intimated telephonically, however, police did not take any action. On the subsequent day, the complainant and his father-in-law visited the police station, however, again police did not take any action and in turn police took complainant's signatures on some blank papers. They were informed by the police to apply for bail of complainant, his wife and son, in a case registered against them. They were frequently called to the police station, on the pretext that a case will be registered against the accused persons. Ultimately, the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court, after examining the preliminary evidence found existence of prima facie case against the accused persons. 3. The complainant, in order to prove his case, examined as many as five witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they pleaded not guilty. In defence evidence, the accused persons produced Ex. D-1 to Ex. 3. The complainant, in order to prove his case, examined as many as five witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they pleaded not guilty. In defence evidence, the accused persons produced Ex. D-1 to Ex. D6, however, no defence witness was examined. 4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 29.03.2006, acquitted the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 500 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, hence the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/complainant. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Trial Court did not appreciate 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 complainant 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, filed by the complainant, be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the appellant 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 I have gone through the record carefully. 8. In the case in hand, the testimony of the complainant is very important. He was examined as CW-3 and he, in his examination-inchief, tried to fortify his case. As per his deposition, Shri Gian Chand and Shri Ramesh were also present on the spot of occurrence. This witness has further deposed that he sustained stick injuries on his back and his wife telephonically informed police of Police Station, Jawalamukhi. However, no report was written and his medical was retained by the police. He has further deposed that his broken incisors are with the doctor of Garli, Hospital. The complainant, in his cross-examination, has deposed that he, through an application, reported the matter to Gram Panchayat qua the occurrence. However, no report was written and his medical was retained by the police. He has further deposed that his broken incisors are with the doctor of Garli, Hospital. The complainant, in his cross-examination, has deposed that he, through an application, reported the matter to Gram Panchayat qua the occurrence. He denied that the occurrence took place near the road. As per him, the occurrence took place on the land adjacent to the house. His in-laws reside at Garli, which is 10/12 kilo meters from his house. He has further deposed that Police Station, Jawalamukhi, is 5 kilo meters away from his house. He admitted that there is dispute qua partition of the joint land. He denied that on 22.10.2000, at about 09:30 a.m., he, his father-in-law, brother- in-law Balbir and wife Sudesh thrashed accused Milap Chand, qua which the matter was reported by Milap Chand to the police. He denied that his teeth fell due to disease and his complaint is defence plea. He did not give any application to the police qua breaking of his teeth. 9. In the instant case, the statements of medical experts is very vital. CW-1, Dr. Harminder Mahajan, deposed that on 22.10.2000, around 03:15 p.m., he examined the complainant and found injuries on his person, which are detailed in medico legal certificate, Ex. PW-1/A, issued by him. As per this witness, probable duration of injuries is within 12 hours and he referred the complainant for dental opinion. After dental opinion, injury No. 1 was opined to be grievous in nature. He has further deposed that these injuries were caused with blunt weapon. The injuries sustained by the complainant could be possible with fist blows. This witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that he did not inform the police. He categorically deposed that he cannot say whether tooth, Ex. PW-1/B, fell due to disease. As per this witness, there was no corresponding injury on the lips of the complainant. He has further deposed that the injuries sustained by the complainant could be possible in a fall. He issued medico legal certificate and advised the complainant to go to Police Station, Jawalamukhi. He handed over the broken tooth to Dr. Zalam Sandhu, Incharge, Civil Hospital, Garli. 10. Cw-2, Dr. Monika Mahajan, deposed that on 22.10.2000, she examined the complainant, as he was referred to her. He issued medico legal certificate and advised the complainant to go to Police Station, Jawalamukhi. He handed over the broken tooth to Dr. Zalam Sandhu, Incharge, Civil Hospital, Garli. 10. Cw-2, Dr. Monika Mahajan, deposed that on 22.10.2000, she examined the complainant, as he was referred to her. As per this witness, dental injury No. 1 could be possible with fist blows. This witness, in her cross-examination, has deposed that she did not conduct any X-ray of the patient. She has also deposed that there was no corresponding injury on the lips of the patient and there was laceration of the gums. As per this witness, oral hygiene of the patient was poor and the tooth, Ex. PW-1/B, could possibly be broken by gross corrosion. This witness admitted that such type of tooth could also fall on its own due to poor hygiene condition. As per this witness, there was no fresh bleeding from the gums when she examined the patient. According to this witness, the injury sustained by the complainant, could be possible due to fall. 11. Cw-4, Smt. Sudesh Kumari (wife of the complainant) deposed that on hearing the shouts of her husband, she rushed to the spot. This witness, through her version, supported the complainant's case. She, in her cross-examination, has deposed that police station is about 5/6 kilo meters from their house and Chambapatan is at a distance of 7/8 kilo meters. This witness deposed that she does not know other two witnesses, who are from her village. As per this witness, some blood stains were on the clothes of her husband. CW-4 denied the counter story of the defence and feigned her ignorance that Milap Chand (accused No. 1) was medically examined. She admitted that there is a trial pending against them for beating Milap Chand. As per this witness, considerable blood oozed from the lips of her husband. 12. Lastly, the complainant examined Shri Ramesh Chand, as CW-5. He has deposed that on 22.10.2000, around 9/10:00 a.m. he alongwith Shri Gian Chand came to Amb for purchasing bullocks and when they were returning, they saw the accused persons thrashing the complainant. As per this witness, teeth of the complainant were broken and accused Praveen Kumari gave beatings to the complainant with stick and slipper. He has deposed that on 22.10.2000, around 9/10:00 a.m. he alongwith Shri Gian Chand came to Amb for purchasing bullocks and when they were returning, they saw the accused persons thrashing the complainant. As per this witness, teeth of the complainant were broken and accused Praveen Kumari gave beatings to the complainant with stick and slipper. This witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that he knows Nathu Ram and his daughter and Nathu asked him to depose in the Court. 13. After exhaustively discussing the entire evidence the same needs to be examined on the touch stone of veracity and truthfulness. In the case in hand, the evidence is very slippery and there are number of discrepancies in the statements of complainant's witnesses. The complainant, in his complaint himself stated that the police called him time and again and he specifically mentioned the dates on which he was called by the police. Surprisingly, the complainant, in his cross-examination, deposed that he went to the police station on the day subsequent to the occurrence and thereafter he did not go to the police station. Admittedly, the complaint is filed on 28.10.2000 and the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 22.10.2000, thus there is delay of six days in filing the complaint, which clearly goes unexplained. As per the deposition of the complainant, initially he moved an application before the panchayat, however, no such application has seen the light of the day. Even the complaint, so filed be the complainant, before the learned Trial Court, did not mention about any such complaint filed by him before the learned Trial Court. If it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the complainant suffered injuries in the beatings given to him by the accused persons, then he could have reported the matter at Police Station, Jwalamukhi, which is only 5 kilo meters from his house, but he had chosen to firstly come to Garli Hospital, which is 10/12 kilo meters from his house. This also raises serious doubt about the veracity of the complainant's allegations. The complainant has deposed in his cross-examination that his 5/6 teeth were uprooted due to disease. 14. There are other material discrepancies in the evidence as well. CW-5, Shri Ramesh Chand, categorically deposed that he is deposing at the instance of Nathu (father-in-law of the complainant). This also raises serious doubt about the veracity of the complainant's allegations. The complainant has deposed in his cross-examination that his 5/6 teeth were uprooted due to disease. 14. There are other material discrepancies in the evidence as well. CW-5, Shri Ramesh Chand, categorically deposed that he is deposing at the instance of Nathu (father-in-law of the complainant). This witness, in his preliminary evidence has deposed that he accompanied the complainant to Garli Hospital, but in his cross-examination he took a slew and deposed that he did not go to the hospital alongwith the complainant. This witness seems to have been made an eye witness of the occurrence deliberately and his deposition belittles the complainant's case. 15. Smt. Sudesh Kumari (CW-4), wife of the complainant, deposed that there were injuries on the lips of the complainant, but Dr. Harminder Mahajan (CW-1) clearly stated that there was no corresponding injury on the lips of the complainant. Further, CW-2, Dr. Monika Mahajan, deposed, in her cross-examination, that tooth of the complainant could possibly be broken by gross corrosion. She has further deposed that the tooth might have been broken itself due to poor hygiene. 16. There are other material discrepancies in the evidence. The complainant stated in his complaint that police was telephonically intimated, but CW-1, Dr. Haminder Mahajan, specifically denied that he telephonically informed the police. The complainant deposed that his wife telephonically informed the police, but wife of the complainant did not state so. The complainant specifically deposed that an application was moved before the Panchayat, whereas wife of the complainant feigned her ignorance to this fact. 17. The net result of the above discussion is that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his 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. 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. Thus, on the basis of material, which has come on record, it is more than safe to hold that the complainant 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. 18. In view of the above, the appeal, so also pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Bail bonds are cancelled.