Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 486 (JK)

State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Sohan Lal

2022-09-13

RAJESH SEKHRI, RAJNESH OSWAL

body2022
JUDGMENT Oswal-J. - This criminal acquittal appeal arises out of the judgment dated 18.07.2014 passed by the court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in file No. 40/Sessions, titled, State vs. Sohan Lal @ Sonu and others, whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charges for commission of offences under sections 307, 364, 452, 332, 353, 382, 147,148, 342 and 201 RPC, arising out of FIR No. 30/2008 of Police Station, Basohli. The judgment has been assailed on the ground that the learned trial court has mis-appreciated the facts and evidence on record as there was enough evidence on record that warranted conviction of the respondents. 2. Mr. Dewakar Sharma, learned Dy.AG appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that PW-Sanjeet Singh has categorically stated that the accused persons entered in the Police Post and committed the offences. In a nutshell, the argument of Mr. Dewakar Sharma is that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence. 3. On the contrary, Mr. Rahul Pant, learned senior counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that there is no evidence on record against the respondents that they attempted to kill the injured-Anil Jad, ASI, as such, there is no illegality or impropriety in the judgment passed by the learned trial court. 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. A perusal of the challan reveals that FIR bearing No. 30/2008 for commission of offences under section 307, 364, 452, 332, 353, 382, 147,148, 342 and 201 RPC was registered at Police Station, Basholi on the basis of a report of SHO Police Station, Basholi, Camp Office Mahanpur, wherein it was stated that the accused armed with sticks etc. formed an unlawful assembly and entered the Police Post, Mahanpur and obstructed the Incharge, Police Post, Mahanpur on 27.03.2008 at 9.00 AM while he was performing his official duty and assaulted Incharge Police Post, Mahanpur in order to kill him. He was taken to the court at Mahanpur through Bazaar and was confined in the room of the court. Further, they had gheraoed the room of the Court, so that no one could rescue the said officer. He was taken to the court at Mahanpur through Bazaar and was confined in the room of the court. Further, they had gheraoed the room of the Court, so that no one could rescue the said officer. During the course of the investigation, Police recorded the statement of the witnesses and prepared the site plan and found that offences punishable under sections 307, 364, 452, 332, 353, 382, 147,148, 342 and 201 RPC are established against the accused and accordingly, report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the court on 19.10.2011. The charge for commission of above mentioned offences was framed against the respondents vide order dated 27.01.2012 and the prosecution was directed to lead evidence, as the respondents did not plead guilty. The prosecution has examined all the witnesses cited in the challan. The respondents did not lead any evidence in their defence and after hearing both the parties, the learned trial court acquitted the respondents vide judgment impugned. 6. In order to determine as to whether the acquittal of the respondents was justified on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and further whether the opinion of the trial court was possible and plausible in view of the evidence available on record, it is imperative to have a brief resume of the relevant portion of the prosecution evidence. 7. PW-1 Sanjeet Singh stated that on 27.03.2008, he was posted as SGCT in the Police Post, Mahanpur. On that date at about 9.15 AM, a mob came to the Police Post and was raising slogans against the In-charge Police Post, Mahanpur and out of the mob, three/four persons entered inside the Police Post and rest remained outside the Police Post. Those three/four persons, who entered inside the Police Post, had heated exchange of words with the In-charge. They brought him out of the room and started beating him. At that time, the said officer was writing official papers, however, he was not in uniform. They took him to the room of Naib-Court in Munsiff Court, Mahanpur by beating and the mob was also there. Thereafter, SHO along with his personnel came on spot and brought the In-charge out and tried to take him to PHC for first aid, but he was prevented by the public from doing so. They took him to the room of Naib-Court in Munsiff Court, Mahanpur by beating and the mob was also there. Thereafter, SHO along with his personnel came on spot and brought the In-charge out and tried to take him to PHC for first aid, but he was prevented by the public from doing so. Thereafter, Doctor was summoned, who provided him first aid and SHO recorded his statement and a docket was prepared and sent to Police Station, Basohli. Thereafter, SSP, Additional SP and SDPO Basohli came on spot and they sent him and ASI Chatter Singh with the injured in a Government vehicle to Kathua, where from the injured was referred to Kathua. Out of the accused, Sonu, Sukesh, Bobi, Shammi and Nishu entered inside the Police Post during the occurrence. During cross examination, he stated that his statement was recorded before FIR was registered. He expressed ignorance about the persons who inflicted injuries upon the In-charge Police Post. The mob was consisting of more than 100 people. 8. PW-2 Koushal Deep stated that on 27.03.2008, he was posted as PSO, in the Munsiff Court, Mahanpur. On that day, when he reached the court premises, he found that 200/250 people had surrounded the court and In-charge, Police Post was lying on the ground. In-charge Police Post asked for water and the police employees lifted In-charge Police Post from the spot and took him to the court room. Doctor came there and provided first aid to him. In cross examination, he stated that he does not know whether the accused present in the court and the exempted accused were in the mob or not. 9. PW-3 Tilak Raj stated that on 27.03.2008, he was performing his duty in the court premises. In the court at 9:45 AM, when he came, he saw that 200/250 persons were present. ASI Anil was lying in an injured condition. He along with other staff lifted him and took him to court room and provided him glass of water. He does not know the accused present in the court. In cross examination, he stated that it is correct that In-charge Police Post had consumed alcohol and he was beaten by the mob. This news was also published in the Newspaper. It is also correct that on the day of occurrence, accused were not present in the mob, which was seen by him. 10. PW-4 Dr. In cross examination, he stated that it is correct that In-charge Police Post had consumed alcohol and he was beaten by the mob. This news was also published in the Newspaper. It is also correct that on the day of occurrence, accused were not present in the mob, which was seen by him. 10. PW-4 Dr. Subash Chander stated that on 27.03.2008, he examined Anil Kumar Jad, ASI, Police Post, Mahanpur in court premises of Mahanpur at about 10.45 AM. As per the requisition report of Ajay Sharma, SHO, Police Station, Basohli, he examined the injured with alleged history of assault by mob of Mahanpur. On examination, abrasion, lacerated wound were found on the head, eyes, forehead, face, back of chest, lower back, buttocks, neck, both elbows and right heal. He issued the certificate regarding the injuries and all the injuries are simple in nature and caused by hard blunt object. He proved the injury report (ExTP/4). He further stated that the same was not compared with the record retained at PHC Mahanpur. As per ExTP/4, there was no injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. 11. PW-5 Anil Jad stated that on 27.03.2008, a mob of 30-40 boys forcibly entered the Police Post, Mahanpur and they were also carrying sticks and stones with them and attacked him and thereafter he fell unconscious. He cannot say whether the accused present in the court were present in the mob or not. His statement under section 164-A Cr.P.C (ExTP-5) was recorded. During cross-examination, he stated that number of people in the mob had covered their faces and he does not remember, who was present in the mob. 12. PW-6 Harbans Singh was declared hostile. Despite cross-examination, no incriminating material has been extracted from him by the Public Prosecutor against the respondents. 13. PW-7 Sat Pal stated that the In-charge Police Post, Mahanpur was sitting in his room. About 150/200 persons entered the police post and some of them started beating In-charge Police Post and some started saving him. The mob took In-charge from the Police Post to the court. During cross examination, he stated that he identifies the photograph of the In-charge Police Post, Anil Jad in Amar Ujala newspaper. 14. PW-8 Laxman Dass stated that on 27.03.2008, he was posted in Police Post Mahanpur. A mob of 150-200 persons came to the Police Post. The mob took In-charge from the Police Post to the court. During cross examination, he stated that he identifies the photograph of the In-charge Police Post, Anil Jad in Amar Ujala newspaper. 14. PW-8 Laxman Dass stated that on 27.03.2008, he was posted in Police Post Mahanpur. A mob of 150-200 persons came to the Police Post. They tried to stop them, but the mob went to the room of In-charge, Police Post and lifted him. They tried to stop the mob, but they started beating him and took him outside the gate. Accused were also in that mob, however, he cannot state who administered beatings to In-charge Police Post and took him to court premises. In cross-examination, he stated that he cannot tell how and when mob was formed because on that day there was strike in Mahanpur. 15. PW-9 Arun Bara stated that the mob entered the Police Post, Mahanpur and brought In-charge of Police Post, Mahanpur, ASI Anil Jad, outside the Police Post and started beating him. He does not know where he was taken. He cannot say whether accused were in that mob or not. In cross examination, he stated that none of the accused was present in mob. 16. PW-10 Ravi Kumar stated that on 27.03.2008, he was posted at Police Post, Mahanpur and In-charge was sitting in his room when a mob of 200/250 persons came there, which included women and children. They tried to stop them. Some people in the mob were trying to stop fighting and some were beating the Incharge Police Post. 50/60 people lifted In-charge Police Post and took him out and started beating him. He cannot say whether the accused persons were present or not. In cross-examination, he stated that some people had covered their faces with cloth. 17. PW-11 Chatto Ram was declared hostile. Despite cross examination, the Public Prosecutor could not extract any incriminating material from him against the respondents. 18. PW-12 Ajay Kumar Sharma stated that he received a phone call from Police Post, Mahanpur that few people have taken away In-charge, Police Post, Mahanpur with them and when he reached the Police Post, Mahanpur he saw that only one SPO was present in the Police Post, Mahanpur. 18. PW-12 Ajay Kumar Sharma stated that he received a phone call from Police Post, Mahanpur that few people have taken away In-charge, Police Post, Mahanpur with them and when he reached the Police Post, Mahanpur he saw that only one SPO was present in the Police Post, Mahanpur. On enquiry, he came to know that many people had come to Police Post, who took away Incharge Police Post, Mahanpur towards the market and when he went towards the market, he saw a mob including children and women had gathered outside the court and In-charge Police Post was lying on the ground in the prosecution room. A Doctor was called for the examination of In-charge. In cross examination, he stated that he does not know the accused, as the mob consisted of 500-600 people including children and women. The accused persons were not recognized by the complainant/injured. 19. PW-13 Ashwani Kumar Sharma has not deposed anything. 20. PW-14 Gurjeet Singh stated that he only received the medical report of Incharge/complainant. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not fill the injury form as he did not go to the doctor personally. 21. PW-15 Suraj Pathania stated that he got the statements of witnesses recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. He was thereafter transferred. In cross examination, he stated that the complainant did not know the accused personally and no identification parade of the accused by the complainant was conducted during his investigation. 22. PW-16 Rajeshwar Singh Salathia stated the he prepared the challan and proved offences under sections 307, 364, 452, 332, 353, 382, 147,148, 342 and 201 RPC against the respondents. In cross-examination, he stated that no identification parade of the accused was conducted by the complainant during the investigation. He further stated that he did not know the number of persons present in the mob. 23. We have examined the judgment passed by the learned trial court. From the evidence on record, the only witness who has deposed against the respondents to some extent is PW-1 Sanjeet Singh, as he has named certain persons who entered the Police Post but in his cross-examination, he categorically stated that he does not know the persons who inflicted injuries to In-charge Police Post, Mahanpur. From the evidence on record, the only witness who has deposed against the respondents to some extent is PW-1 Sanjeet Singh, as he has named certain persons who entered the Police Post but in his cross-examination, he categorically stated that he does not know the persons who inflicted injuries to In-charge Police Post, Mahanpur. Anil Jad, ASI, In-charge Police Post Mahanpur was the most important witness as he happened to be the injured witness but he too has stated that he cannot say whether the accused present in the court were part of the mob or not. The witnesses mentioned as PW-2, Koushal Deep, PW-3 Tilak Raj, PW-7 Satpal, PW-8 Laxman Dass, PW-10 Ravi Kumar, PW-11 Chatto Ram have simply deposed that mob entered the Police Post, Mahanpur but none has stated that the respondents assaulted Incharge. They have given contradictory statements about the number of persons present in the mob and they have not stated anything that the respondents formed part of that mob. In view of the fact that mob consisted of 200/250 people, it was obligatory on the part of the Investigating Officer to conduct the identification parade of the accused so as to find out the identity of the persons who entered the Police Post, dragged In-charge Police Post, Mahanpur, assaulted him and took him to the court premises at Mahanpur. In fact, there is no evidence on record against the respondents. 24. Learned trial court has dealt with every issue very meticulously and after threadbare discussion of the evidence has come to the conclusion that the respondents are not guilty of the offence. We do not find any perversity in the judgment of the acquittal recorded by the learned trial court. In fact, there is no reason for us to interfere with the well reasoned judgment. 25. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. 26. Record of the learned trial court be sent back.