State of Haryana v. Roop Kumar & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH --- Present: Mr. S.S. Randhawa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the applicants. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This judgment shall dispose of Crl.Misc.Nos.A.731-MA of 2009 and 13-MA of 2010 filed by the State of Haryana under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to appeal against the judgments of acquittal dated 27.8.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. Vide aforesaid two separate judgments, the trial Court has decided two cross cases registered on the complaint of each of the party arising from the same occurrence and in both the cases the accused have been acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. Crl.Misc. No.A.731-MA of 2009 & anr. -2- In the first case, FIR No.147 dated 17.4.2007 was registered under Sections 323/324/325/452/307/506/34 IPC on the basis of an application moved by Dalbir Singh son of Jogi Ram in which he stated that on 12.4.2007 his brother-in-law (wife's brother) Jagdish son of Ram Singh was residing with his family in his own house in Sanjay Colony, Panipat. At about 7.30 PM, the complainant and his cousin Ranbir went to see Jagdish in Sanjay Colony, Panipat, but he was not present there. However, his son Anil was studying in the upper room of his house. When they were sitting in the verandah, accused Sohan, his brother Mohan and their father Krishan, who were known to him earlier, came there with iron rod and sword in their hands. They were abusing in filthy language and stated that they would teach a lesson to Anil for quarreling with Mohan. By saying so, they went upstairs in the room. In the meanwhile, Roop and his father Rajinder having dandas in their hands, also came there. The complainant tried to restrain them but they entered into the house forcibly. On reaching upstairs in the room, Sohan, Mohan and Krishan started beating Anil. Krishan gave an iron rod blow on the head of Anil. Rajinder gave a sword blow on the left hand, due to which, his left hand little finger got injured. Sohan, Mohan and Roop also caused injuries to Anil with their respective weapons. Then Anil fell down. When the complainant and Ranbir tried to save Anil from their clutches, Sohan gave a danda blow on the right arm of Ranbir. Mohan gave a danda blow on the head of Ranbir, Krishan gave an iron rod blow on the complainant's head and Rajinder gave a sword blow on his head. Sohan also caused injuries to the complainant. On hearing the noise, many people gathered there. All the accused persons criminally intimidated Anil, Ranbir and the complainant with dire consequences and left the spot along with Crl.Misc. No.A.731-MA of 2009 & anr. -3- their respective weapons. As per the aforesaid version, the complainant party did not cause any injury to any person from the accused side, whereas on the same day, another FIR was registered under Sections 323/452/506/34 IPC on the written complaint made by Siri Krishan son of Bhagwana in which it was alleged that he was a resident of Sanjay Colony, Panipat and was serving in Sugar Mill. On 12.4.2007, complainant, his sons Sohan Lal and Mohan Lal, and other family members were present at his house. His younger brother, namely, Rajinder came to his house to meet him. On the same day, his son Sohan Lal had gone to a shop in order to take Chaumin and on the said shop, an altercation took place between his son Sohan Lal and his neighbour Anil Kumar, and he was advising his son not to pick up any quarrel with anybody. In the meantime, Anil son of Jagdish, Dalbir son of Jogi Ram and Ranbir son of Puran Singh, who were known to him earlier, came to his house having iron rod and dandas in their respective hands. Anil gave an iron road blow on the head of his son Sohan Lal, Ranbir gave a danda blow on the back side of his head. Dalbir gave a danda blow on the right side of his head and on his waist. In the meantime, several boys also reached the spot, whose names he did not know. On raising alarm by him, many persons from the neighbour-hood reached there and on seeing them, the culprits ran away from the place of occurrence along with their respective weapons. According to the aforesaid version also, the complainant side did not cause any injury to the accused side. It is specifically mentioned here that both the written complaints were made after five days of the occurrence. It has come in evidence that on 12.4.2007, Dalbir Singh was Crl.Misc. No.A.731-MA of 2009 & anr. -4- medico-legally examined by Dr. Dalip Singh, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Panipat, who found three injuries on his person. Out of the three injuries, one was incised wound over the left side of scalp of the size of 3.4 x 05 cm with clotted blood and the other two injuries were abrasion and bruise. Similarly, on the same day, Ranbir Singh was examined by the said doctor, who found five injuries on his person, out of which three were diffused swelling and two were abrasions. On the same day, the said doctor medico-legally examined Anil and found five injuries on his person, out of which, two were lacerated wounds, the other two were diffused swelling and the remaining one was multiple abrasions. In the cross-case, it has also come on record that on 13.4.2007, Dr. Alok Jain, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Panipat, medico-legally examined Siri Krishan and found three injuries on his person. On the same day, Dr. Alok Jain along with Dr. Archana Paliwal, medico-legally examined Sohan and found six injuries on his person. On the same day, both the doctors also medico-legally examined Rajinder and found six injuries on his person. After completion of investigation, two challans were filed and charges were framed against all the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Both the cases were tried together. The trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence led in both the cases has come to the conclusion that both the parties had received injuries in the same occurrence, but in both the cases the complainant party has not explained the injuries received by the accused. It has been found that the nature of injuries received by both the parties is to such an extent that it cannot be said that they had received the injuries with Crl.Misc. No.A.731-MA of 2009 & anr. -5- friendly hand. It has further been noticed that both the parties have reported the matter to the police after inordinate and unexplained delay. In both the cases, the parties have not disclosed the true facts and have levelled counter allegations against each other. During the investigation of both the cases, it has come on record that the occurrence had taken place at two places, i.e. one in the house of accused Anil and another in the house of the complainant Siri Krishan. As per site-plan, it was found that both the houses are situated opposite to each other with a common street in between. The trial Court, while considering the statement of the Investigating Officer and other evidence, came to the conclusion that it is apparent that the investigating agency did not reach any definite conclusion regarding the place where the occurrence had actually taken place. In both the cases, no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. The police has shown both the places, which were pointed out to them by the accused party and complainant party, as the places of occurrence. It has been noticed that the parties in both the cases are giving conflicting statements. None has explained the injuries caused by them to the opposite party, even in the Court. After taking into consideration all these factors, the trial Court while relying upon certain decisions of this Court as well as the Supreme Court has held that in such situation where both the parties have suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and not explained the injuries received by the accused party in each case, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused side, and accordingly, acquitted all the accused of the charges framed against them by giving them the benefit of doubt. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicants and going through both the judgments of the trial Court, we are of the opinion that the Crl.Misc. No.A.731-MA of 2009 & anr. -6- trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and then came to the aforesaid conclusion. In our view, the conclusion drawn by the trial Court is the only possible view from the evidence led by the prosecution in both the cases. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the instant case is not a fit case where the leave to appeal is to be granted. Resultantly, both the applications are dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE February 18, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) JUDGE