Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2712 (PNJ)

State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Dass

2018-07-03

FATEH DEEP SINGH, T.P.S.MANN

body2018
JUDGMENT Mr. T.P.S. Mann, J. -The State has preferred the present application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 2.8.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa. 2. Vide impugned judgment, leaned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges under Sections 341, 324, 323 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. 3. According to the prosecution, complainant-Manoj Kumar had studied upto 10+2 standard. On 16.2.2015, there was birthday of his friend Mohit, who was his class fellow. Being a friend, Mohit had called him and others. After the birthday cake was cut on the roof of the house of Mohit, his friends congratulated him. Thereafter, Mohit played songs on the DJ and they started dancing. Mohit stopped the DJ at 12 midnight. Thereafter, they played songs on the laptop and started drinking. In the meantime, Mohit’s tenant Coach Kharia and Kuldeep Chautala alongwith their friend accused Bhagwan Dass @ Kalu son of Lala, resident of village kharekan came on the roof top and started dancing. The Coach and Kuldeep caught hold of the complainant whereas Sem asked Bhagwan Dass @ Kalu to give kapa blow to him. Kalu gave a kapa blow on the backside of his head and when he tried to rescue himself, Coach, Kuldeep and Sem started beating him by giving fist and kick blows. After hearing the noise, Mohit and his brother Yogesh rescued the complainant. The assailants fled away from the spot. The complainant was removed in a private vehicle to General Hospital, Sirsa from where he was referred to Sarvodaya Hospital, Hisar. 4. The trial Court after going through the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against accused Bhagwan Dass @ Kalu for the commission of aforementioned offences beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, acquitted him of those offences after extending the benefit of doubt to him. 5. After hearing learned State counsel and on going through the impugned judgment of acquittal, this Court finds that though the occurrence had taken place on the intervening night of 16/17.2.2015 at about 1.00/2.00 a.m., the FIR was lodged on 24.2.2015 at 8.40 p.m. PW2 Mohit, owner of the house and his brother PW3 Yogesh did not support the prosecution case. The complainant was medico-legally examined by PW14 Dr. The complainant was medico-legally examined by PW14 Dr. Rahul Mighani on 17.2.2015 at 1.30 a.m. Dr. Rahul Mighani deposed that Mohit was brought to the hospital with the history of being found by some passer-by at Dabwali Road near Hisar by-pass, Sirsa. He was unconscious and two injuries were found on his person. However, there was no endorsement on the medico-legal report that PW2 Mohit and PW3 Yogesh had got the complainant admitted in General Hospital, Sirsa. Rather, it was Ruli Ram, who had found him at Dabwali Road, Hisar by-pass, Sirsa near Vishal Mega Mart in an injured condition. Said Ruli Ram was examined by the accused as DW1, who deposed that when he reached Dabwali road near Hisar by-pass, a person signaled him to stop the car as he was in an injured condition. After he stopped the car, the person told him that he had met with an accident. He took the injured to General Hospital, Sirsa. On the way, he enquired his name and was told that he was Manoj Kumar son of Rajbir. 6. PW1 Manoj Kumar while appearing before the trial Court did not explain the delay in lodging the FIR. The delay assumes significance for the reason that PW2 Mohit and PW3 Yogesh did not support the version of the complainant. 7. According to the prosecution, the accused was armed with a kapa which he had wielded in giving a blow on the head of the complainant. Though only one blow was caused yet while conducting medico-legal examination, PW14 Dr.Rahul Mighani had found two injuries. 8. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court fell in error in acquitting the accused/respondent of the charges against him. The application is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined.