Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 235 (HP)

Piar Chand v. State of H. P.

2021-04-09

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2021
JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The learned trial Court convicted the accused/petitioner herein for charges drawn under Sections 451, 323, and, under Section 325 of the IPC. The learned trial Court also imposed, consequent therewith sentences of imprisonment, and, of fine upon the accused/petitioner herein. 2. The accused/petitioner herein challenged the verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith imposed sentences of imprisonment, and, of fine, upon, him, hence by the learned trial Court, through his casting an application before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court, dismissed the respondent/petitioner's appeal, and, affirmed the judgment of conviction, and, consequent therewith imposed sentences of imprisonment, and, fine, upon the accused/petitioner. 3. The accused/appellant being aggrieved therefrom, hence, has cast the extant criminal revision petition before this Court. 4. The site of occurrence, whereat the relevant penal incident had occurred, is, enumerated in site plan, Ex.PW8/A. In sequel to the thrashings, meted by the accused, upon, the victim concerned, the injuries hence suffered by the child victim, one Nishant, are embodied in Ex.PW11/A. Ex.PW11/A became proven by PW-11. The injuries contained therein are extracted hereinafter:- “1. An abrasion and bruise of size 1 CM over both upper and lower lip. No fresh bleeding was seen. 2. Upper incisor bluish discoloration. 3. An abrasion of size 0.5 cm over back. No fresh bleeding was seen. 4. Bluish colour bruise of size 2 CM over back side of right leg.” 5. The afore proven medical evidence against the accused does also require it becoming corroborated by oral evidence. The ocular account, vis-a-vis, the occurrence, is rendered by PW-2, one Priyanka. Though, PW-2 is a child witness, yet only after her intelligibility being fathomed by the learned trial Judge, she was permitted to testify. In her examination-in-chief, she has attributed commission of charged offences to the accused/petitioner. Her attribution of commission of charged offences to the accused/petitioner, is, squarely in tandem with the afore enunciation, contained in the apposite MLC. The attribution of an incriminatory role by PW-2, the ocular witness to the occurrence, has though became endeavoured to be rid of its veracity, through, the learned defence counsel subjecting her to the ordeal of an exacting cross-examination, yet no exculpatory answer became elicited from her. Consequently, the ocular account, vis-a-vis, the occurrence, as, testified by PW-2, is, free from any taint or any blemish, and, is to be meted completest sanctity. 6. Consequently, the ocular account, vis-a-vis, the occurrence, as, testified by PW-2, is, free from any taint or any blemish, and, is to be meted completest sanctity. 6. The testification of PW-2, is, supported by the injured/victim, who stepped into the witness box as PW-4. Though, PW-4 is also a child witness, yet only after his intelligibility becoming fathomed by the learned trial Court, he was permitted to testify. He in his examination-in-chief rendered a testification rather meteing, the, corroboration to the testification of PW- 2, one Priyanka. 7. In aftermath, with there being complete harmony inter se the credible ocular account, vis-a-vis, occurrence, and, with the medical evidence, thereupon, this Court does not deem it fit, and, proper to interfere with the concurrently made verdicts of conviction, and, consequent therewith sentences of imprisonment, and, fine respectively imposed upon the accused/respondent by the learned trial Court, and, later affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court. 8. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that both the learned Courts below, have appraised the entire evidence, on record, in a wholesome and harmonious manner, apart therefrom, the analysis of the material, on record, by both the learned Courts below, hence, also not suffering from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation of germane thereto evidence, on record. 9. Consequently, there is no merit in the extant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. The judgments impugned before this Court are affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. The learned trial Court is directed to execute, if not already executed, the sentences, as, imposed, upon, the accused/petitioner herein. Records be sent back forthwith.