Chaman Lal vs Madan Lal and Another

Sanjay Karol, J.—All the four revision petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment, as they arise out of the very same judgment and common questions of fact and law are involved. Assailing the judgment dated 31.10.2011, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, in Criminal Appeal No. 7-X-2011, titled as Madan Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh and other connected matters, whereby judgment dated 9.2.2011, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Una, in Case No. 27-II-2008, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Varinder Singh and others, has been reversed, complainant Shri Chaman Lal has filed the present Revision Petitions under the provisions of Sections 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Complainant Shri Chaman Lal (PW-2) made statement (Ex.PW-2/A) under the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on the basis of which FIR No. 111/07, dated 19.12.2007, under Sections 341, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station Bangana. As per the complainant, one lady was standing in the queue for casting her vote to the H.P. Legislative Assembly Elections at Polling Booth, Government School Jasana. The Polling Officer enquired about her particulars. Complainant Shri Chaman Lal, who was present at the spot, asked the Polling Officer to enquire about the name of the lady''s husband. After some time, the lady ran away from the spot. However, accused Madan Lal (respondent No. 1 in Cr.R. No. 119 of 2012) and Suram Singh (respondent No. 1 in Cr.R. No. 120 of 2012) gave beatings to complainant Chaman Lal, as a result of which he sustained injuries. Thereafter, both these accused persons alongwith their co-accused Manjit Singh (respondent No. 1 in Cr.R. No. 121 of 2012) and Varinder Singh (respondent No. 1 in Cr.R. No. 122 of 2012) threatened the complainant with dire consequences. Matter was investigated by the police. Complainant Shri Chaman Lal was given medical treatment. He was referred to and treated at the Regional Hospital, Una and subsequently at the PGI, Chandigarh. With the completion of investigation, Challan was presented in the Court for trial.

Accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Section 325/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. Statements of the accused u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded.

Appreciating the evidence, trial Court convicted all the accused persons of having committed offence punishable under the provisions of Section 325/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

As noticed, herein above, the lower Appellate Court as reversed the findings as also the judgment of conviction and sentence.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered view that no case for interference is made out by the complainant/present petitioner in the present revision petitions, which arise of the common judgments.

Significantly, in the instant case, prosecution has neither examined any doctor from the PGI, Chandigarh nor has any record of such treatment produced before the Court. Dr. Asha Negi (PW-1), who was posted at the Regional Hospital, Una at the relevant time, has prepared MLC (Ex. PW-5/A). Injuries are there on the body of the complainant, but then this doctor admits that the opinion so recorded by her is based on the opinion given by the doctors at PGI, Chandigarh, which of course has not been brought on the record of this case.

Independent witness Shri Des Raj (PW-3) has not supported the prosecution case.

Prosecution case primarily rests on the testimony of the complainant (PW-2) and Shri Yash Pal (PW-4) who claims to be a spot witness. Lower Appellate Court, in my considered view, has rightly held that there are glaring contradictions, improvements and uncorroborated versions in the statements of these witnesses, rendering the prosecution version to be extremely doubtful. Findings in that regard read as under:

Coming to the statement of complainant Chaman Lal, it emerges that he was beaten with fist blows by the accused/appellants Madan Lal, Suram Singh and later on, appellants Varinder and Manjeet also joined hands with other appellants. He has stated that he fell down on the floor after sustaining injuries. He has not specifically stated that appellants inflicted injuries on his eye.

PW4 Yash Pal in examination-in-chief has stated that accused Madan Lal started beating Chaman Lal and after some time, other appellants Varinder and Tanu also came there and started giving beating to Chaman Lal. This witness is silent about infliction of injuries by appellant Suram Singh. He further stated that police came at the spot immediately and rescued Sh. Chaman Lal. In cross-examination he also stated that police reached at the spot after an hour. It is to be noted and observed that PW3 Des Raj who stated to have rescued Chaman Lal from clutches of the appellants, has turned hostile. He had only stated that heated arguments took place between 4-5 persons and Chaman Lal. The scuffle also took place. He did not recognize persons who indulged in scuffle with complainant. Thus PW Des Raj did not support the prosecution case.

Noticeably, prosecution has not examined the Polling Officer and also the other police personnel posted at the time of polling. According to the complainant, the lady, who also has not been identified and examined in Court, perhaps had come to cast a bogus vote. Scuffle allegedly took place at a public place and in the presence of Government officials. Why is it that the prosecution has not examined any one of such officials, has not been explained. It has come on record that the complainant and the accused were the polling agents for the rival groups/political parties. Statement of the complainant has to be scrutinized by circumspection in this background.

Accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. It is a settled principle of law that unless and until there is an absolute perversity in the proper and complete appreciation of the material so placed on record by the parties, the Courts would not normally interfere with the judgment of acquittal as a valuable right accrues in favour of the accused.

The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the lower Appellate Court. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Md. Ankoos and Others Vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., , it cannot be said that the lower Appellate Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. In the instant case, I am of the considered view that the lower Appellate Court has rightly arrived at its conclusion and returned the findings in favour of the accused persons. Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, all the petitions, devoid of merit, are dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.