State of Himachal Pradesh v. Harish Chand & Ors.

The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Surender Sharma and Mr. Shivank Singh, Panta, Advocates. Surinder Singh, J (oral) . The respondents were tried and acquitted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Their acquittal is under challenge in this appeal filed by the State. Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that on 28th April, 1999, in the evening Lekh Ram was resting in his room and other family members were away to the house of his brother PW-6 Hem Raj to attend the (cid:147)Mudan(cid:148) ceremony. It is alleged that at about 9.00 pm the respondents formed an unlawful assembly, dashed into the room of the complainant armed with Dandas and gave him beatings with the result he sustained injuries. The police was informed and the complainant was got medically examined on 30th April,

1999. Police recovered the Dandas used by the respondents to cause the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - injuries and after completing, Challan was presented in the Court wherein they were acquitted. Shri J.S. Rana, learned Assistant Advocate General has argued that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in the right perspective and further that the complainant and his witnesses have corroborated the version of the prosecution. Therefore, there are grounds for reversing the judgment of acquittal. Contra, Shri Surender Sharma learned Counsel respondents duly assisted by Shri Shivank Singh Panta, Advocate, supported the reasoning advanced by the learned trial Court for the acquittal of the respondents. I have also meticulously examined the evidence on record to appreciate the rival contentions. Prosecution examined PW-3 Smt. Rama Devi, wife of the complainant and PW-4 Mohan Lal, PW-5 Ashok Kumar and PW-6 Hem Raj, the members of the same family, besides examining the complainant himself. PW-2 Ramesh Chand was unfavourable to the prosecution case, as such, he was declared hostile. On the perusal of the statements of the witnesses, it is evident that both the parties are admittedly locked in litigation for the last 15 years and they are not in visiting terms in the houses of each other. To appreciate to whatever they allege, their statements are required to be scanned cautiously. It has also come in evidence that there are inhabited houses in the close vicinity, but no one from there has been cited as a witness or examined in the Court to substantiate the version of the complainant. Although, PW-1 complainant Lekh Ram stated that he was given beatings by the respondents in his room with the Dandas which caused injuries to him, but he categorically stated that on 29th April, 1999 he had made - 3 - a complaint to the police, pursuant to that they visited the spot on the same day and he was also got medially examined. It is pertinent to note that the Police Station is at a distance of about six kilometers from the place of incident. But no such complaint was produced on record to show what was his earlier version. However, there is only statement Ext.PW-1/C, which was recorded by the police on 30th April, 1999 which culminated into FIR Ext.PW-7/A, which was sent to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate located within the town where it was received on 1st May, 1999 at 10.00 AM, as per the endorsement thereon. The reason for delay is unexplained and it can safely be inferred that it was antedated and is the result of due deliberation, thus shrouded with suspicion, which casts a serious doubt on the probity of the prosecution case. Further the complainant admitted that he has been taking the liquor and also in intoxication falls down. However, he denied that he sustained injuries because of such a fall. As against this narration, the statement of his wife Rama Devi (PW-3) assumes importance. Although, she was also declared hostile by the prosecution, but thereafter she stuck to the prosecution case. In cross-examination she stated that at the time of the incident she was not present on the spot but stated that her husband went to lodge the FIR at 9.00 AM next day. She admitted that the Police Station is situated at a distance of 10 minutes walk from her residence. She expressed her innocence whether her husband had been hurling abuses on the respondent in the fit of intoxication and with the same breadth she did also not rule out this possibility. On the top of it, she categorically admitted that the present case against the respondents was instituted by her husband merely for the reason that the land of her husband is in the possession of the accused-respondents. She also admitted that the statement which she gave before the Court was given by her at the instance of her husband. - 4 - PW-4 Mohan Lal is the brother of PW-1 Lekh Ram. He also admits the old litigation over the landed property inter se the parties and admits that he is not in visiting terms in the house of the respondents. Similar is the statement of PW-5 Ashok Kumar, who is also the brother of Lekh Ram and stated that both the parties are not pulling well with each other because of the landed dispute. PW-6 Hem Raj stated that on the place of incident it is an inhabited area where there is a population of 70-80 people, but no one was examined to lend corroboration to the prosecution version. Even the wife of the complainant stated that at the relevant time PW-2 Ramesh Chand was also there, but no such reference has been made by him in his statement when examined in the Court. On the critical examination of the aforesaid evidence, I find that the prosecution case is devoid of any merit. The statements of the prosecution witnesses are inconsistent, contradictory, biased and not confidence inspiring. The delay in lodging the FIR is also not explained. The suppression of the complaint which is alleged to have been filed with the police by the complainant on 29th April, 1999 also casts a doubt on the correctness of the prosecution case. Therefore, the acquittal of the respondents cannot be interfered with. The appeal is without merit, hence dismissed. The respondents are discharged from the bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of this case. Records of the Court below be sent back forthwith. March 18, 2010. (rc) (Surinder Singh), Judge.