Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1603 (HP)

Dev Raj alias Devo v. State of H. P.

2019-10-24

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal, is, directed by the convict/ accused/appellant, against, the pronouncement made by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., upon, Sessions Trial No.34-I/VII-2006, whereunder, he convicted, besides imposed consequent therewith sentence, upon, the convict/accused/appellant, for, his committing offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 325, and, under Section 323 of the IPC. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 2.2.2006 at about 8 P.M. on the way at village Paniyala, the accused wrongfully restrained Baldev Singh son of Lakha Ram, resident of Bhanala, Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra, and, caused simple and grievous hurt to Baldev Singh. It is also alleged that the accused had caused injury to Baldev Singh which was dangerous to his life. On the afore facts, FIR was registered against the accused in the police station, and, thereafter all the codel formalities were completed. 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/appellant herein, stood charged, by the learned trial Court, for, his committing offences, punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, and, under Section 307, of, the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses. On conclusion of recording, of, the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused, under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was, 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 conviction, upon, the accused/appellant herein, for, his hence committing offences punishable, under, Sections 341, 307, 325, and, under, Section 323, of, the IPC. 6. The appellant herein/accused, stands aggrieved, by the findings of conviction, recorded, by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel appearing, for, the appellant herein/accused, has concertedly, and, vigorously contended, qua the findings of conviction, 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 conviction warranting reversal by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. Hence, he contends qua the findings of conviction warranting reversal by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of conviction, 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. The victim Baldev Singh, as, unraveled by MLC, borne in Ex.PW12/A, and, proven by PW-12, sustained upon his person, the injuries delineated therein, and, the afore injuries, are, further testified by PW-4, to, beget fracture of frontal bone, on, both sides with fracture, of, left temporal bone, and, the testification of PW-4, is, meted assured corroboration, by, the testification rendered, by, PW-3, Dr. Raman Sharma. The echoings borne in the afore rendered testifications, do carry, precise underlinings, vis-a-vis, grievous injuries hence dangerous, to the life, of, the victim, becoming rather entailed, upon, his person. 10. The afore alluded medical evidence, does, succor the charge against the accused/convict, and, the ocular account testified by the victim, is, meted fullest corroboration by PW-6, and, by PW-15. The testifications of the afore ocular witnesses, are, rendered with, the, fullest intra se, and, inter se corroborations, and, obviously they do not also unfold any blatant improvements or embellishments, vis-a-vis, their respectively recorded statements previously in writing, and, hence absolute credence, is, enjoined to be meted thereto. The testifications of the afore ocular witnesses, are, rendered with, the, fullest intra se, and, inter se corroborations, and, obviously they do not also unfold any blatant improvements or embellishments, vis-a-vis, their respectively recorded statements previously in writing, and, hence absolute credence, is, enjoined to be meted thereto. Even, a reading of the testifications of the afore ocular witnesses, and, as embodied in their respective cross-examinations, rather do not disclose, any defence, vis-a-vis, the accused, being unavailable at the site of occurrence, rather, the trend of cross-examination, whereto which rather the afore witnesses, stood subjected to, contrarily unveil, vis-a-vis, the accused alongwith the victim, and, also along, with the ocular witnesses, all together consuming liquor, (a) and, though danda, Ex.P-3, stands testified, by the ocular witnesses, to, comprise the relevant weapon of offence, yet therein it stands projected, to be not used, by the accused, in his, inflicting blows, on, the head of the victim, (b) rather the defence espouses qua the head injuries, entailed upon the person of the victim, rather being, a, sequel of the victim falling hence under the influence, of, liquor. However, all the afore suggestion(s) stood repelled. Consequently, the effect of the afore trend, of, cross-examination, whereto which, each of the ocular witnesses to the occurrence, stood subjected to, is qua, there occurring, a, vivid display qua the accused, joining the company of the ocular witness, hence, also mark, his presence at the relevant time, (c) and, when PW-12, who prepared Ex.PW12/A, has, in his cross-examination, also dispelled the defence espoused, vis-a-vis, the victim in contemporaneity to his being subjected to medical examination, rather his being, in, an inebriated state, (d) thereupon, with the afore defence becoming staggered, does constrain this Court to assign tenacity, to, the uneroded testifications rendered, by, the ocular witnesses, to, the occurrence. 11. 11. Be that as it may, Ex.P-3, though was not recovered by the Investigating Officer, at the instance, of, the accused, rather when qua therewith, memo Ex.PW6/A, stood drawn, (i) and, when, a, reading of the afore memo, makes disclosure, vis-a-vis, it being handed over by one Rafiya Ram, (ii) and, when the witnesses to the recovery memo, do not dispel the efficacy, of, the afore disclosures, made, in Ex.PW6/A, (iii) besides when for all the afore reasons, the user of Ex.P-3, by the accused, upon, the head of the victim, is, testified with assured intra se corroboration, by, the afore ocular witnesses, thereupon, this court, is, constrained, to conclude that, the medical evidence, and, the efficacious recovery, of weapon of offence, as well as, the credible ocular account rendered, hence, by the ocular witnesses, vis-a-vis, the charge, all, rather conclusively pointing towards the guilt, of, the accused. 12. 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, also does not suffer from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation of germane thereto evidence, on record. 13. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. The learned trial Court is directed to forthwith execute, the, sentence against the accused/convict. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.