Parkash Chand v. Jai Singh & Ors.

The case of the complainant, as noticed by the trial Court in para No.2 of its judgment, reads thus:- “Through the present complaint, the complainant has averred that he is a peace loving inhabitant of village Khera Tehsil Jagadhari, District CRM No. 582-MA of 2010 (O&M) 2 Yamuna Nagar and the complainant is a poor man doing the work of Rikshaw Puller. The accused persons are also the residents of the same village who are desperate type of persons and have no respect for law in their eyes. It is averred that on

4.5.2003, the complainant was taking dinner with his family members at about 8.30 pm in his house when electricity went off. The complainant came out of his house and saw that accused No.4 Sanjeev Kumar had climbed on the electric pole and was tinkling with the electric wires to change the phone. Due to this act of the accused No.4 the light had went off, whereupon the complainant asked him to fix the wire at the same place to restore the electricity supply to his house, whereupon Sanjeev Kumar started abusing in filthy language to the complainant and said that he has removed the wire and if the complainant desire, he should himself set it right. It is further averred that the complainant thinking that he would get the necessary repair done in the morning, went to sleep. However, at about 1.00 p.m in the night the complainant heard the noise of abuses and knock at his door, whereupon, he opened the gate and saw that all the CRM No. 582-MA of 2010 (O&M) 3 accused No.1, 3 to 5 and 7 having formed an unlawful assembly and armed with dandas, and sarias etc. forcibly trespassed into the house of the complainant in furtherance of the common object of the said unlawful assembly. Immediately, accused Jai Singh gave danda blow in the head and chest etc. of the complainant. The other accused also gave fist and slap blows etc to the complainant. The accused No.2 to 6 started throwing brick bats in the house of the complainant while standing in the street. The accused broke the main wooden gate of the house of the complainant. The electric bulb of the house was also broken. The wife and sons of the complainant namely Mam Chand, Pawan Kumar, Rinku Lal intervened to save the complainant from the clutches of the accused but they were also given beatings with dandas etc. On their noise, many villagers collected at the spot which included Bundi son of Chamela and Charanjee son of Kanderoo and rescued the complainant from the clutches of the accused. The accused then put the complainant and his family members in a room and bolted it from outside thereby illegally confining them and threatened that CRM No. 582-MA of 2010 (O&M) 4 in case any body would open the door, he would have to face the consequences and then went away. However, while going away, they threatened to kill the complainant and his sons on finding suitable opportunity. At about 4.00 am in the morning Jogindero wife of Surender Kumar opened the door of the room and the complainant and his family members were brought out. It is further averred that in the morning at about 8.00 am the complainant went to police station Sadar Jagadhari and moved an application but he was advised first to go to Civil Hospital and on their advise, he went to civil hospital, Jagadhari where he was admitted for two hours and his medical examination was done and the copy of which was supplied to the police but police in league with accused No.8 Sat Pal, HC who is closely related to the accused persons conspired with other accused and as a result of his conspiracy, no case was registered against the accused and on the other hand, a case FIR No.56 dated 5.2.2003 was registered against the complainant and his sons for the offence under sections 323, 324 of Indian Penal Code by getting a false MLR of Sanjeev accused prepared and due to CRM No. 582-MA of 2010 (O&M) 5 the influence of accused No.8, the police booked the complainant and his sons on 17.5.2003 in a case under Section 107, 151 Cr.P.C. It is further averred that the complainant several times requested the police for taking action against the accused and moreover, several complaints were also moved to SP Yamuna Nagar and DC Yamuna Nagar and on the other hand, the complainant who is a victim of high handedness of the accused persons is being harassed. Hence, he prayed that accused may kindly be summoned and to face trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323/ 324/ 148/ 149/ 452/ 504/ 506/ 427/ 342 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code.” After hearing learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, I am of the opinion that the present application deserves dismissal. Learned trial Court, while acquitting the respondents, has held that the complainant had filed several complaints against various persons. He had also filed a case against the respondents before filing of the complaint in question. The sole alleged eye witness Dhani Ram, CW-3, was related to the complainant. Learned trial Court, in para Nos. 14 and 15 of its judgment, has observed as under:- “14. As per the allegations of the complainant, CRM No. 582-MA of 2010 (O&M) 6 through the present complaint, the electricity in their village went off at 8.30 pm and when he went outside, he saw accused No.4 climbing up the electricity pole and he was fiddling with the wires. On being stopped, accused hurled filthy abuses at the complainant however, complainant resisted to those abuses and went back in his house and slept but accused deliberately entered the house of the complainant at about 11.00 pm and assaulted the complainant and also confined him and his family members in a room and rest of the accused were standing outside who threw brick bats at the house of the complainant and the door of the complainant's house was also broken and it was Jogindero who opened the bolt of the room, where complainant and his family members were confined. It has also come in the version of the complainant that accused No.1, 3, 4,5 and 7 were armed with dandas and sariya and these weapons were used for assaulting him on the date of incident however, perusal of the MLR which although not exhibited on the record shows that there was no external injury on the person of the complainant neither the doctor has been examined in order to prove the injuries. CRM No. 582-MA of 2010 (O&M) 7 No eye witness in the present case has been examined by the complainant. Moreover, the important witnesses namely Joginder who opened the bolt of the door where the complainant was confined has also not been examined neither there is any person of the complainant throughout his statement on oath about the breaking up the door. Apart from this, there are major contradictions in the version of both these witnesses. The complainant in his examination has deposed that fight continued for fifteen to twenty minutes whereas, the other witnesses stated that fight continued upto two and a half hours to three hours. One of the witnesses has deposed that there was light in the village at the time of incident whereas, other says that there was no light. Further, according to the complainant version, they approached the police authorities at

8.30 am on the next day where they were advised to go to the Civil Hospital but perusal of the FIR shows that they reached the hospital at 3.30 pm and moreover, there is no external mark of any injury present and the complainant just complained of pain in the chest. Moreover in the history of assault on the MLR it is written allegedly to have been beaten CRM No. 582-MA of 2010 (O&M) 8 by somebody. Here, the court fails to understand when the complainant had already approached to the police for making complaint against the accused then why did he withheld the name of the accused from the doctor which shows that he had manipulated the things. Moreover, the complainant in his cross-examination deposed that incident took place at 8.30 pm whereas, according to complainant, the incident took place at 11.00 pm. Also both the witnesses have deposed that all the eye witnesses had reached the place at 8.30 pm whereas, the incident as per complaint took place at

11.00 pm. In the cross-examination, no specific attribution of weapon to a particular accused has been given by CW2. Further CW2 in his cross- examination deposed that accused had iron rod in his hand whereas in the complaint he says danda and brick bats.

15.Now coming to the accused No.8. The only allegation against accused No.8 is that he has colluded with accused No.1 to 7 and helped them to procure false MLR and thus got the case registered against the complainant and his family members. However, the evidence of the CRM No. 582-MA of 2010 (O&M) 9 witnesses in very important in this respect. The complainant in his cross-examination has deposed the following facts:- “He did give written complaint against accused No.8 to the Senior Officers but he does not possess the copy of the same. He further deposed that he cannot say that medical of accused Sanjiv accused No.4 was conducted by whom. He also cannot tell that whether doctor had any relation with accused No.4 Sanjiv kumar or not. He also cannot tell accused had bribed which police official. He has not moved an application to the Senior Officers stating that investigation gone by accused No.8 in the present case is tainted investigations.” The reasons given by the trial Court, while acquitting the respondents of the charge framed against them, are sound reasons. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has failed to point out any mis-reading of evidence on record by the trial Court. No ground is made out to grant leave to file an appeal. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. October 26, 2010 (SABINA) JUDGE