State of H.P. v. Lachhi Ram

Mr. M.S. Thakur and Mr. Inderjeet Narwal, Advocates. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chopal, dated 26.3.2001, vided which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 147, 148, 324 read with Section149 IPC, 323 read with Section 149 IPC and 506 read with Section 149 IPC.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on

9.10.1999, a report was lodged with the police by complainant Nain Singh, in which he alleged that today at 8.30 A.M., when he was present in the house of his in-laws, where he was ploughing the fields, Lachhi Ram firstly gave beatings to him with danda and then with darat and his son Rajinder Singh also attacked him with dangra. He 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 suffered injuries on his head and other parts of the body as well as the leg from which blood oozed out . On this report, a rapat was entered and he was sent for medical examination. Meanwhile another report was lodged by Smt. Uttmo Devi in regard to the injuries and occurrence. A case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed against the respondents who were tried by the learned trial Court for the sections mentioned above, leading to their acquittal.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

4. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that complainant Nain Singh had lodged the report firstly with the police and thereafter, another report was lodged by Smt. Uttmo Devi. The said complainant Nain Singh has appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and has stated that he does not remember the date, when he was ploughing the fields and his both mother-in-laws Smt. Gaido Devi and Smt. Uttmo Devi were cutting the grass in the adjoining land. Lachhi Ram, Munni Devi and Geeta Devi came there and stopped him from ploughing the fields and Lachhi Ram gave a blow with lathi over his leg, while one blow was given over his leg and his mother-in-law tried to rescue him. Lachhi Ram gave a blow with darat over his head and a blow was also given with dangra. He rescued himself and fell in the fields on the lower side. He further stated that in this occurrence his mother-in-law also sustained injuries which had been inflicted by Geeta. The injury was inflicted on the head of his mother-in-law and blood started oozing out. Thereafter, he stated that his mother-in-law was beaten by Lachhi Ram, Rajender, Munni Devi and others and his mother-in-law also 3 lodged a report with the police. It is clear from a perusal of his statement that he has not stated in the same manner in which the occurrence was reported by him. He was also splitting the occurrence in two parts, firstly when he was given blow by three accused persons and secondly when his mother-in-law was given blows by some of the accused persons named by her. Thus, the complainant has given a different version then the lodged with the police or as compared to the testimony of PW-1 Uttmo Devi, his mother-in-law.

5. PW-1 Uttmo Devi stated that her son-in-law was working in the fields and three persons, namely, Kumbh Dass, Lachhi Ram and Bittu came there and started quarrelling with her son-in- law and she asked her son-in-law to continue ploughing the fields. Thereafter, the other accused persons named by her came there and gave a blow with danda over the head by Lachhi Ram, while Bittu was having dangra and a blow was given by Lachhi Ram with darat on the head of her son-in-law. Her son-in-law jumped and fell down and then she was given blows over her head with dangra by Satya Devi and she suffered injuries with dangra, which were on her hand. She was rescued by Chaju and Kumbh Dass.

6. A careful perusal of the statement of both these witnesses clearly show that sequence of events given by them leading to the inflicting of injuries on her person and on the person of her son-in-law were different and she had split the occurrence in two parts when the accused came earlier and rest of the accused persons came thereafter and blows were given to them. It has been admitted by PW-1 Smt. Uttmo Devi that relations in between the 4 parties are strained and they were cutting the grass from the land. She also admitted that her son-in-law had jumped and suffered injuries, whereas she has further stated that she grappled with the accused and fell down. Therefore, the possibility that she as well as her son-in-law Nain Singh PW-2 suffered injuries as a result of fall cannot be ruled out. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that she was in possession of the land which was being ploughed by her son-in-law and rather the quarrel had taken place when the accused persons were cutting the grass and it was objected to by her. Complainant PW-2 Nain Singh has no where stated that he or his mother-in-law were rescued by Chaju Ram and Kumbh Dass, but PW-1 Uttmo Devi has stated that she was rescued by these two witnesses and out of them only witness, namely PW-6 Chaju Ram has been examined and the other witness Kumbh Dass was never produced by the prosecution, though the Court observed that at the time of one hearing he was present in Court also. PW-6 Chaju Ram when examined turned hostile and stated that no quarrel took place in his presence. He was the only independent witness who was examined by the prosecution out of the two witnesses present at that time, but even he has not supported the version given by the complainant or his mother-in-law.

7. The Medical Officer PW-7 Dr. Khem Raj Shukla has admitted that the injuries on the person of complainant Nain Singh were a braised wound and one abrasion and bruises and these injuries reflected in MLC Ext. PW7/A and Ext. PW7/B could be caused due to fall and striking against the hard surface. He also admitted that the bruises can be caused by a fall on a stone not having 5 sharp edges. Therefore, the possibility of both the injuries having suffered by fall, which fall was admitted by them cannot be ruled out. The learned trial Court had also observed that the occurrence had taken place on 9.10.1999, but the recovery of danda in question was made on 15.11.1999, that is, after more than one month. The Investigating Officer had also taken in possession the dangra used for committing the offence in question on 17.12.1999, that is, after more than two months and no reasonable explanation has been given for the late recoveries effected in the case and the learned trial Court had observed that in such circumstances it cannot be said that the investigation was fair.

8. Keeping in view the contradictions and the fact that the statements of the complainant and his mother-in-law were not corroborative and one of the independent witnesses examined has not supported the prosecution case and in view of the infirmities in the prosecution case, the final conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be termed as perverse, calling for an interference by this Court.

9. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. July 20, 2010 (BSS) ( V.K. Ahuja ), Judge 6