State of Haryana v. Mukhtiar Singh & Ors.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA ..... RESPONDENTS Present: Mr. G.S. Chahal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for the applicant-State. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. * * * The State of Haryana has filed this application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 28.1.2010, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa, whereby nine accused, namely Mukhtiar Singh, Kuldip Singh, Teja Singh, Sukhraj Singh, Surender Kumar, Mandar Singh, Bhup Singh alias Pilot, Jaskaran Singh and Rameshwar (respondents herein) have been acquitted in case FIR No. 52 dated 30.3.2005 under Sections 148/149/364/323/379/506 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station City Dabwali. In the present case, the FIR was registered on 30.3.2005, i.e. after more than 4 months of the alleged occurrence, which allegedly took place on 23.11.2004. According to the prosecution version, which is based upon the application moved by complainant Chhotu Ram, on 23.11.2004 at Crl. Misc. No. A-521-MA of 2010 -2- about 3.45 PM, he along with Chand Singh Brar had gone to Dabwali Court, where accused Kuldip Singh, Teja Singh, Rameshwar and 3-4 other persons, armd with deadly weapons, came in a Martial Jeep bearing registration No. HR 25A-4851. After alighting from that vehicle, respondent-accused Kuldip Singh raised Lalkara that they would not spare the complainant party. While abusing, the respondents-accused, while armed with deadly weapons, followed the complainant Chhotu Ram and Chand Singh Brar with intention to kill them. Thereupon, both of them ran towards Courts. After some time, they came out of the Court and found that their companion Rajender Singh was being forcibly taken by respondents- accused Kuldip Singh and Teja Singh in the jeep with intention to kill him. It was further disclosed that some valuable documents and ` 5,000/-, which were in the said jeep had also been taken away. The complainant and Chand Singh Brar saved themselves from the respondents-accused, otherwise they might have caused injuries to them. It was further stated that they approached SHO, Police Station Dabwali for taking action against the respondents-accused, but he refused to do so. On the next day, they had gone to Railway Station of Bringkhera and found that the aforesaid jeep was lying in a broken condition and their companion Rajender Singh was lying unconscious near the jeep. They took him to CHC, Dabwali, but the Doctor refused to medically examine him. It is further case of the prosecution that thereafter, the injured was got medically examined from a Private Hospital at Lambi in Punjab. Crl. Misc. No. A-521-MA of 2010 -3- After completion of investigation, challan was filed against the respondents-accused and they were charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 148/364/392/397/506/149 IPC, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses, out of whom PW.1 Dr. Gulab Singh is the Medical Officer, who medico legally examined injured Rajender Singh and PW.4 Chhotu Ram is the complainant, whereas the remaining witnesses are formal in nature. Chand Singh Brar, the other eye witness and Rajender Singh, the alleged injured, are stated to have died. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the respondents-accused denied the allegations appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and pleaded innocence. However, they did not examine any witness in their defence. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, has acquitted all the respondents-accused, while coming to the conclusion that there is long delay in lodging the FIR, which has not been explained by the prosecution. It has also been observed that there is nothing on the file to show that PW.4 Chhotu Ram had ever approached the police officials or he had given any information regarding this occurrence to the higher officers. It has been further found that though it has been alleged that PW.4 Chhotu Ram brought injured Rajender Singh to CHC Dabwali for medical examination and the doctor had refused to admit him, but there is Crl. Misc. No. A-521-MA of 2010 -4- nothing on record to show this fact also. The trial court has also noticed that in the MLR (Ex.PA) of Rajinder Singh, it is mentioned that he was brought by one Sukhdev, who has neither been cited as witness nor examined by the prosecution. It has also been found that PW.4 Chhotu Ram (complainant) has made several improvements in his statement while appearing in the court, in comparison to his earlier statement made to the police. Initially, he had given names of only three accused, but in the witness box, he has named all the accused. Even the Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined and this fact has also been considered by the trial court. After considering all the aforesaid factors, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the trial court is one of the possible view, which can be taken from the evidence led by the prosecution in the instant case. It cannot be said that the view taken by the trial court, while acquitting the respondents-accused, is totally perverse, which cannot be taken, at all, in the given circumstances. It is settled law that the judgment of acquittal is to be interfered only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and others, (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 53 that the High Court should interfere in the judgment of acquittal only when it finds that the evidence on record clearly and absolutely indicate the guilt of the accused. The High Court should not interfere merely on the basis that from the evidence on record a different view as to the trial Court is possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any ground Crl. Misc. No. A-521-MA of 2010 -5- to grant leave to appeal. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE September 20, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE