Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2224 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Bisham Singh

2018-12-17

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, against, the impugned judgment, of, 18.5.2007, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Shimla upon Criminal Appeal No. 51s/10 of 2006, and, upon Criminal Appeal No. 52s/10 of 2006, where through the learned Special Judge, Shimla, while setting aside the judgment of conviction, rather acquitted the respondents herein of the charges framed against them. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Vijay Nand, lodged a rapat Ex. PW6/A on 12.5.2005, at Police Post Chirgaon, Tehsil Rohru, to the effect that he is an agriculturist and resident of village Dungyali. He has his agricultural land at Kalidhar. His daughter-in-law Negapati had gone on the previous day to said land for work. When she returned to home in the evening, she informed the complainant that wheat crop which had been sown in the afore land had been uprooted by accused Bhisham Singh and his family members. The complainant in the morning of May 12,2005, went to the spot at about 7.30 a.m. along with Main Ram, member Gram Panchayat and two other respectable persons. Accused Bhisham Singh, his wife Sushma Devi, his son Hans Raj and his sister came there. The complainant started talking to them about the mischief. In the meantime accused Bhisham Singh gave a danda blow on the right arm and other persons gave beatings with fists and leg blows. Accused Sushma Devi also assaulted the complainant with a danda. He was saved by Main Ram and Fina Dass etc. The complainant sustained injuries on all over his body. Upon such report formal FIR Ex. PW7/ E was registered. After completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused challan was prepared against Bhisham Singh, Sushma Devi, respondents herein and Prabha Devi and Hans Raj and the same was filed in the Court. 3. The accused were charged by the learned trial Court for theirs committing offence punishable, under, Sections 323, 325 and 506 readwith Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty, and, claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded, wherein, they pleaded innocence. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded, wherein, they pleaded innocence. In defence, they examined DW1 Vijay Singh. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of conviction against the respondents Bhisham Singh, and, his wife Sushma, respondents herein, vis-a-vis the offences charged. However, the learned trial Court returned findings of acquittal, in favour of Hans Raj, and, Prabha Devi. The respondents herein being aggrieved by the afore judgment of conviction rendered by the learned trial Court hence preferred appeals before the learned Special Judge, Shimla. The learned Special Judge, Shimla, while setting aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal, in their favour. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge, Shimla, standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has with, considerable force and vigor contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below, standing based, on a mature and balanced appreciation of 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 charge appears to be proven by the respective depositions, as, rendered qua the occurrence, by PW1 Vijay Nand, PW2 Surender Singh, PW3 Gulab Singh, and, PW4 Main Ram. The depositions of the afore PWs, are, bereft of any taint of any intrase contradictions, interse, their respective examinations-in-chief, vis-a-vis, their respective cross examinations’, (i) and, also are bereft of any gross interse contradictions, nor, their depositions are ingrained with any vice of gross embellishments, vis-a-vis, their respectively recorded previous statements in writing. The depositions of the afore PWs, are, bereft of any taint of any intrase contradictions, interse, their respective examinations-in-chief, vis-a-vis, their respective cross examinations’, (i) and, also are bereft of any gross interse contradictions, nor, their depositions are ingrained with any vice of gross embellishments, vis-a-vis, their respectively recorded previous statements in writing. Consequently, even if, the afore rendered statements by the afore PWs, are not hence tainted with any of the afore stains, and, (ii) hence even when their purported interestedness, may also not rather subside the potency of their testifications hence rendered with interse corroboration, (iii) and also when each of the PWs, denied, the defences’ propagation qua the complainant hence holding possession of the contentious parcel, of, land, (iv) and for hence usurping possession thereof rather the accused launching an assault upon him, (v) nonetheless with PW7, the, Investigating Officer, during, the course of his being subjected to cross-examination, by the learned defence counsel, hence acquiescing to a suggestion, put thereat to him, qua his during the course of his holding investigations’ rather making un-earthings qua the complainant, for, usurping possession of the contentious parcel of land, as held, by the accused, his rather proceeding to launch an assault upon the accused, (vi) suggestion whereof begot an affirmative answer, (vii) does fillip an inference qua the accused hence proving their espousal qua the injuries, if any, which stood inflicted, on the person of the complainant hence being inflicted, during, the course of their allegedly exercising the right of private defence of body, and, of property. Thereupon, a further inference arises qua the complainant being the initiator of the aggression, and, wherefrom a further sequel also arises qua the accused being entitled to exercise, both, right of private defence of property, and, of person. 10. Be that as it may even if certain injuries were purportedly sustained by the complainant, and, as stand embodied in PW8/ A, proven by PW8, and, also when under PW1/ A, both Ex. P1 and Ex.P2 were handed over, by the complainant, to the Investigating Officer concerned, (i) however for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, even the afore evidence does not support, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate general qua, thereupon, the prosecution proving the charge against the accused, given, (a) the MLC comprised in Ex.PW8/ A standing prepared on 12.5.2005, and, Ex. PW1/A being prepared two days subsequent thereto, (b) thereupon hence when at the time of the Doctor concerned, holding the medical examination of the complainant, was obviously not shown, the weapon of offence, nor, with the afore dandas standing shown to him, during, the course of his being examined in Court, (c) rather when during the course of his cross-examination, he has ventilated qua the injuries occurring in the MLC being causable by fall, on a hard surface, and, all the injuries being not possible by a single fall, on a hard surface, thereupon it is possible to infer, that, the afore weapons of offence, rather remaining unconnected with the injuries, disclosed in PW8/ A. 11. In view of the above, this Court does not deem it fit and appropriate, that, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge, Shimla hence meriting any interference. 12. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, and, the impugned judgment is maintained and affirmed. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.