Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2320 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Ram Rattan

2018-12-31

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal, stands, directed by the State, against, the pronouncement made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P., upon, Criminal Case No. 1/2 of 2008, whereunder, the accused/respondents herein stood acquitted. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 18.8.2017, at about 10.50 p.m., an intimation received from Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Chail that some persons have been injured in a quarrel and came to the hospital. On this information H.C. Rajinder along with other police officials visited the hospital, and, recorded statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., of, complainant Rajinder Kumar to the effect that he is resident of Village Nagali. Ram Rattan, Om Prakash, Inder Singh and Ramesh are also residing in the same village with their families. The afore named persons are inimical towards their family. They used to load seasonal vegetables in the vehicle, but the above named persons always obstruct them to do so. The afore named persons bringing their vehicles for the last 8 to 10 days for loading. On 18.8.2007 at about 7.30 p.m., in the evening when vehicle came on the road then his mother Vidya Devi went to see the vehicle on the road. When his mother did not return after some time, then his brother Balwant went to see his mother on the road. Ram Rattan and his family members caught hold Balwant from his throat and started beating him. When his brother started crying then his sister and mother also came on the spot and asked that when they were beating Balwant, on which all these persons started quarreling with them. After some conversation, the accused persons, namely, Ram Ratta, Kanta, Om Prakash, Inder Singh, Ramesh, Ashok Kumar, Madan Lal, Sanjay, Ajay, Vijay, Pankaj, Uma, Sharda, Sunita, Anita and Sheela gave beatings to Vidya, Reena Thakur and Balwant Singh with kick and fist blows. They also pelted stones on them owing to which injuries were sustained on head and left eye of his person. Vidya Devi sustained injuries on head, and, Balwant sustained injuries on his eyes and chest, whereas, Reena sustained injuries on her head, and, on other parts of the body. On hearing their cries, Joginder and Devender came to the spot and they were rescued by them. Vidya Devi sustained injuries on head, and, Balwant sustained injuries on his eyes and chest, whereas, Reena sustained injuries on her head, and, on other parts of the body. On hearing their cries, Joginder and Devender came to the spot and they were rescued by them. He along with Vidya Devi, Reena and Balwant were taken to the hospital by Joginder and Devender. On the afore statement of the complainant, FIR was registered in the Police Station concerned, and, the police investigating the case. 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/respondents herein stood charged, by the learned trial Court, for, theirs committing offences, punishable under Sections 147, 149 and 323 of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 11 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 in the case. 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 appellant herein/State, stands aggrieved, by the findings of acquittal, recorded, by the learned trial Court. The Additional Advocate General, 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, by it, 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 being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has with considerable force and vigour, 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. 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. Preeminently, the prosecution was enjoined, to, prove the genesis of the prosecution case, encapsulated in the statement, borne in Ex.PW1/A, statement whereof, stands recorded at the instance of the complainant, who, stepped into the witness box, as PW-1. The testification rendered on oath by the complainant, is enjoined to make vivid bespeakings, hence bearing absolute concurrence, with all, the recitals borne in Ex.PW1/A. However, in case, therein rather occur, gross embellishments, and, improvements, therefrom, also, hence apparent rife contradictions therefrom, hence, occur, in the testification rendered on oath by PW-1, thereupon inferences would stand sparked qua (a) the recitals borne in Ex.PW1/A being falsified, (b) and, theirs being hence construed to be invented or fabricated, (c) and, also qua the testifications, of, the purported ocular witnesses, in purported corroboration thereof, also losing their vigour. 10. For determining the afore factum probandum, an allusion to the recitals borne in Ex.PW1/A, and, to the testification rendered on oath by PW-1, is imperative. In Ex.PW1/A, wherein, the genesis of the prosecution case, is, embodied, a narration occurs qua the mother, of, the complainant, initially proceeding, towards, the contentious road, and, thereafter, after elapse of some time, the, brother of the complainant one Balwant, hence, proceeding to the relevant spot, and, on hearing cries, the, complainant along with his sister, visiting the site of occurrence. The afore narrations, borne in Ex.PW1/A, were, enjoined to be testified, with, the utmost corroboration by PW-1, upon, the latter stepping into the witness box. However, a perusal, of, the statement, rendered on oath, by PW-1, especially, the, one comprised, in his examination-in-chief, unveil (a)qua echoings being borne therein, qua, rather his mother, and, brother together, visiting the spot, and, his after hearing shrieks, and, cries erupting therefrom, rather hence, visiting the relevant site, of occurrence, along with his sister. Obviously, hence, the afore apparent rife contradictions, belittles, the worth of the narrations borne in Ex.PW1/A, thereupon, the recitals encapsulated in Ex.PW1/A, are construable to be falsified, and, are also construable to be a sheer invention or concoction, (b) with, a further sequel qua any purported corroboration thereto, as, rendered by the purported testified ocular witnesses to the occurrence also losing their apt efficacy. More so, with PW-2 in addition to PW-1, hence naming one Joginder, and, one Devender hence being available at the relevant site, for, hence rescuing them, from, the assault perpetrated, upon, the victims, rather also naming one Daya Ram, (b) also adds, to the aura of skepticism hence surrounding the testification, rendered by PW-1. Furthermore, PW-3 in addition, to, the afore also adding the name of one Kapil, also, aggravates the aura of skepticism rather engulfing the genesis of the prosecution case, rendering it to remain not cogently proven. 11. In addition, though, the complainant, testifies qua all the victims, being admitted in hospital, for three days, (a) yet when hence the prosecution narration, is, qua only Vidya and Reena, being admitted in hospital, and, other persons leaving to their respective abodes, after, receiving treatment, also stains the truth, of, the prosecution version. Cumulatively, hence, all the afore inter se or intra se improvements or embellishments, inter se the version borne in Ex.PW1/A, and, the testification in discord therewith, rendered by PW-1, (b) and, also all the afore inter se contradictions, inter se, the testifications rendered by the afore purported ocular witnesses, to, the ill-fated occurrence, rather enhances an inference, qua, the genesis of the prosecution case, being both incredible, and, unbelievable. 12. However, the learned Additional Advocate General, has, contended (a) that with the respectively drawn MLCs by PW-7, exhibits whereof, are, borne in Ex.PW7/A to Ex.PW7/D, hence being proven by PW-7, and, also with PW-7 in her deposition, borne in her examination-in-chief, making, echoings qua all the injuries, borne in all the afore MLCs, being, caused by user of blunt weapon, (b) and, with hers, in her cross-examination, conducted by the learned defence counsel, denying a suggestion qua the injuries reflected in MLCs, respectively borne in Ex.PW7/A to Ex.PW7/D, being not causable by fall on hard surface or heap of stones, (c) thereupon, the prosecution version qua the accused pelting stones, upon, the victims, hence standing proven. However, the afore submission falters, for want, of, collection of stones, and, also for want of the stones being shown to PW-7, during, the course of her deposition being recorded. However, the afore submission falters, for want, of, collection of stones, and, also for want of the stones being shown to PW-7, during, the course of her deposition being recorded. Moreover, the afore omission is grave, given the purported oozing, of blood, from the injuries respectively sustained by the victim, purportedly by pelting of stones, by the accused, upon, the respective persons, of, the victims, (d) thereupon, some stains of blood were enjoined to occur thereon, (e) and, also the purportedly pelted stones, upon, the person of the victims, were enjoined to remain at the site of occurrence, and, also warranted their collection. Reiteratedly, the afore omissions also falsify the prosecution versions, and, when the collections, of, apposite clothes, as respectively seized under memos, borne in Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW2/A, and, Ex.PW3/A rather remained undispatched to the FLS concerned, for renditions, of an opinion thereon, by the expert concerned, (f) whereas, upon, the afore endeavour being recoursed by the prosecution, firm evidence would erupt qua the afore items, being smeared with the blood belonging, to the blood group of the victims. Sequelly, hence, even the afore omission rather fosters an inference qua the seizure of clothes of the victims, as, made through Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW2/A, and, Ex.PW3/A not carrying thereon, their blood, and, also hence the prosecution version being falsified. 13. 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, hence, not suffering from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation of germane evidence on record. 14. 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.