State of H.P. v. Sita Ram & Ors.

His father Piar Singh (PW-2) and wife Smt. Sumna Devi (PW-3) informed him that accused Rita Kumari and her father accused Sita Ram had disconnected the same. PW-1 went to the complaint room Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - to lodge the complaint and returned along with the Junior Engineer and lineman of the Electricity Department. The official(s) checked the wires and informed PW-1 that electric connection had to be disconnected from the Transformer. Accordingly, they all went to the Transformer for the said purpose. PW-1 made inquiries from accused Sita Ram as to why they had disconnected the electricity connection. At that, all the accused persons came wielding lathis in their hands and started giving beatings to him. Accused Badku alias Vijay Kumar gave a blow with a lathi on the mouth of PW-1. Smt. Sumna Devi (PW-3) raised an alarm and came to the spot to rescue her husband. In the meanwhile, PW-2 also reached on the spot when accused Sita Ram gave a blow with a lathi on his head due to which he fell down unconscious. Before departing from the spot, all the accused threatened PW-1 and PW-2 of killing them. The matter was reported to the Police by PW-1 and to this effect, entry in the Rapat Roznamcha (Ex. PW-1/A) was made on 13.11.1998. PW-1 and PW-2 were got medically examined by the police. Dr. V.K Kapil (PW-8) referred PW-2 to the Zonal Hospital at Dharamshala from where he was referred to P.G.I, Chandigarh for further treatment. Looking into the injuries sustained by PW-2, police formally lodged F.I.R No. 109/1998 (Ex. PW-7/A) dated 20.11.1998 u/s 307, 323 I.P.C at Police Station, Nadaun. During investigation lathis (Ex. P-1, P-2 and P-3) were recovered by the police. Medical reports of the injured were taken on record. Blood stained clothes (Ex. P-4, P-5 and P-6) of the complainant party were taken by the police, which were sent for chemical analysis and report Ex. PW-11/C obtained. - 3 - Investigation revealed that the accused were involved in the crime and as such, challan was presented in the Court for trial.

3. Accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined 11 witnesses and statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C were also recorded in which accused Ajay kumar and Vijay Kumar pleaded false implication and accused Rita Kumari and Sita Ram took up the following defence: (cid:147) Nothing except that I am innocent and not committed any offence. As a matter of fact on that day alongwith Rita Kumari I was in the cow- shed which is 50 yards from my house. The complainant party all of sudden assaulted my wife and on hearing her cries I went to my house to save her from them . In the meanwhile PW-2 Piara Singh also came there and fell down on a stone in my courtyard being used by us for washing of cloths and sustained injuries. The complainant party left my wife and took up said Piara Singh and he was taken from there. I have thus been implicated falsely. Thereafter on the next date in the morning I taken my wife to Hospital at Nadaun for medical. The police Constable was also with me. She was medically examined & I was told that MLC will be sent to police Station. As I did not withdraw the complaint, the police registered the case at the instance of complainant as counter blast.(cid:148) - 4 -

5. In order to prove the same accused also examined two witnesses.

6. Trial Court acquitted the accused of the charged offences, hence the present appeal.

7. As per the version of the prosecution witnesses, incident took place in the presence of officials of the Electricity Department. Surprisingly, Police has not associated any person from the Electricity Department, including the J.E and the Line man, reference of whom is there in Ex. PW-1/A during investigation. They have also not been examined in Court for reasons best Known to the prosecution. However, accused have examined the lineman i.e. Roshan Lal (DW-1) in their defence. In no uncertain terms he has deposed that he was taken to the spot by the complainant (PW-1) when T-Mate Pradeep Kumar and J.E Kuldeep Singh were also with him. Complainant (Prahalad Singh) switched on the light of his Tractor and went to the house of the accused. His brother also accompanied him. Quarrel took place on the side of house of the accused and the officials ran away from the spot.

8. Smt. Oma Devi (DW-2) wife of accused Sita Ram, has deposed that sons of PW-2 came to her house and started beating her in the verandah of the house. When she raised hue and cry, her husband Sita Ram(accused No.1) and daughter Rita Kumari (accused No.2) came from nearby cow-shed and rescued her from their clutches. On account of beatings given by sons of Piara Singh, who also was present at the spot, she sustained injuries on the wrist of her left hand and other parts of her body. She went to the police - 5 - Station and lodged a report. Police also got her medically examined. On her complaint police did not register any case for the reason that they were insisting on the parties to compromise the matter. She has explained that accused Ajay Kumar and Vijay Kumar are sons of her sister-in-law (husband(cid:146)s sister) and reside in their house which is at a distance of about 6.7 Kms from her house.

9. According to the accused while Omawati was being rescued, PW-2 fell on the ground and sustained injuries.

10. The defence taken by the accused, appears to be probable more so for the reason that Rapat Rojnamcha (Ex. DA) got registered by DW-2, dated 14.11.1998 reveals that HHC Vipin Kumar, Police Station, Nadaun was deputed to get her medically examined at the Community Health Centre, Nadaun. Her medical record was also taken into possession by the police. Yet no formal case was registered or investigation in this regard, completed by the police. Perhaps other sons of PW-2 may have been involved in the incident. Significantly while filing challan in the instant case, police has not even bothered to take care of this factual matrix. There is no reference about the complaint made by Omawati and injuries sustained by her. Why so ?No plausible explanation is forthcoming.

11. The defence version further stands fortified from the fact that even though complaint (Ex. PW-1/A) was lodged by PW-1 on 13.11.1998 and the complainant party got medically examined on the very same day, yet police registered the FIR (Ex. PW-7/A) only on 20.11.1998. According to the medical records ( Ex. PW-8/A and PW-8/B) injuries sustained by PW-1 and PW-2 were sufficient - 6 - enough for the police to have registered the case at the very first instance. The delay in registering the FIR only renders the version of the defence to be probable.

12. In any event we find the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, i.e complainant party, PW-1 (Prahalad Singh) PW-2 (piara Singh) , PW-3 (Sumna Devi) and eye witness PW-5 (Dharam Singh)not to be reliable, trustworthy and inspiring confidence. There are serious contradictions, improvements, improbabilities in their versions.

13. The very spot where the alleged incident took place has not been fully explained by the complainant party. PW-1 simply states that the accused came to his house through an open field in which wheat crop was sown. He specifically does not mention the place where the actual incident took place. According to PW-2 and PW-3, the incident took place in the courtyard of their house which version stands materially contradicted by PW-5, according to whom the fight actually took place in the fields owned by PW-2. The version of these witnesses stands materially controverted by DW-1, according to whom, the complainant party had gone to the house of the accused where the quarrel took place.

14. As per the version of PW-1, it was accused Badku who gave blow with a danda to PW-2, which stands controverted by PW- 2 himself according to whom the blow was given by accused Sita Ram. Further according to PW-2, quarrel lasted for about four minutes whereas according to PW-3 it went on for about fifteen minutes. Contradiction with regard to the timings, even though - 7 - minor acquires significance in view of the fact that presence of Sumna Devi on the spot itself is doubtful.

15. Further according to PW-5, after giving beatings to the complainant party, accused left the spot hurling abuses and threats which in fact is not even the case of the complainant party . This makes presence of PW-5 on the spot to be doubtful. Importantly name of PW-5 is not there in the complaint (Ex. PW-1/A) wherein presence of officials of the Electricity Department is specifically mentioned. Had the incident actually taken place in his presence, his name would have been specifically mentioned. Absence thereof only renders his version to be doubtful if not false. We also find that this witness has made several improvements. He was confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C(Mark C) wherein the fact that Sita Ram had given a blow of lathi on the head of Piara Singh was not so recorded. His version that he was informed by PW-1 that accused Badku had given beatings to him also does not find recorded therein.

16. Apart from the contradictions in the statements of the relevant prosecution witnesses we also find that they have made several improvements. PW-1 was confronted with his statement (Ex. PW-1/A) wherein the fact that accused Badku had hit him on his mouth was not so recorded. The fact that accused Sita Ram had given blow with a lathi on the head of his father was also not so recorded.

17. PW-2 admits that electric pole from where electricity was allegedly disconnected was installed on the land owned and - 8 - possessed by the accused. Even according to the complainant they had gone to the pole with the officials of the Electricity Department which only renders the defence version that the complainant party had come to the house of the accused and given beatings to Omawati to be probable.

18. Dr. V. K Kapil (PW-8) has opined that injuries sustained by PW-1 and PW-2 could be caused by means other than blows of lathi.

19. We also find that complainant PW-1 has given different version in Court than the one recorded in report Ex. PW-1/A.

20. Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons we do not find that prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused by leading clear, cogent, consistent and reliable evidence.

21. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ration of law laid down in Mohammed Ankoos and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the persons has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. (Deepak Gupta) Judge. 26th August, 2011 (priti) (Sanjay karol) Judge.