Harish Ram vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

N.S. Dhanik, J

This is an appeal, preferred by the informant, against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.9.2017 whereby the private respondents 2 to 5 have been given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 452, 504 and 506 IPC.

The background facts of the case are that the informant (appellant herein) lodged an FIR alleging that when her 12 years old daughter had taken the goats for grazing, the accused persons seized his goat and after beating her daughter, they made her to leave the spot. On the next day (3.3.2015), accused persons attacked on the family members of the informant and inflicted serious injuries to them with patal and dandas. When the informant came to rescue them, he was also assaulted. After investigation, police submitted chargesheet against the accused persons. Charges were framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial.

The prosecution, in order to prove its case, produced as many as seven witnesses. After appreciating the evidence adduced on record, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charges and the prosecution story was doubtful. Consequently, accused persons were acquitted.

In the present case, the informant and accused persons are neighbours. Among the four accused, Hayat Ram and Preeti Devi are husband and wife and the remaining two, namely, Prakash and Tulsi Devi, are the son and daughter-in-law of Hayat Ram and Preeti Devi. Out of the seven witnesses examined by the prosecution, four witnesses are from the same family. PW1 is Harish Ram (complainant), PW2 Asha Devi is the wife and PW3 Sumitra and PW4 Suman are the daughters of the complainant. PW5 Smt. Govindi Devi is also the close relative of the complainant. Two other witnesses are Dr. Harish Pant (PW6), who medically examined the complainant Harish Ram and his wife Asha Devi on 3.3.2015, and S.I. Chetan Rawat (PW7), who conducted the investigation.

As is apparent, no independent eyewitness has been examined by the prosecution, though the name of two independent eyewitnesses Saruli Devi and Deepa Devi are mentioned in the chargesheet and the Investigation Officer, in his cross-examination, has admitted that he had recorded the statements of these two witnesses during the course of investigation. There are major contradictions in the statements of other eyewitnesses (PW1 to PW5) including the complainant. In the FIR, the complainant has not even stated the time of alleged incident. In the FIR, the complainant alleged that he was present on the spot and was also assaulted, but in his cross-examination he has admitted that he was not present at the place of occurrence. In his examination-in-chief, the complainant has stated that Prakash Chandra assaulted complainant's wife with patal and ensanguined her. His wife PW2 has also made similar statement and has further stated that she remained admitted for about 11 days in the government hospital. However, no medical paper to prove this fact that she remained admitted for such a long time has been produced on record. Two daughters (PW3 and PW4) of the complainant in their examination-in-chief have stated they were assaulted by the accused with patal and dandas and both remained admitted in the government hospital for about 11 days. However, no medical paper has been produced in support of this. Further, PW2, PW3 and PW4 have deposed that the accused persons had hurled filthy language. Contrary to it, PW1 (complainant) in his cross-examination has stated that the accused had not hurled filthy language. In fact, PW2, PW3 and PW4, in their examination-in-chief, have made exactly same statement and that too in the same sequence. It clearly shows that they are the tutored witnesses and no credence can be given to such statements.

Another serious doubt in the prosecution story is that the complainant has alleged in the FIR and has also stated in his examination-in-chief that he was assaulted by the accused persons with lathis and dandas. But PW6, the doctor who medically examined the complainant and his wife, has stated that there was no injury of lathi and danda suffered by them and all the injuries were simple and it took him just five minutes in conducting the medical examination of PW2 Asha Devi.

Thus it is quite evident that the prosecution story is neither corroborated by the oral evidence nor by the medical evidence. Further, the patal and dandas used in the alleged incident have not be recovered. The main thrust of the argument of learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant is that the trial court has not discussed the deposition of PW5 Smt. Govindi Devi. Definitely, it was a lacuna on the part of the trial court. It ought to have appreciated the evidence of PW5.

Having perused the statement of PW5, I am of the opinion that prosecution does not derive any support from her statement as well. PW5 is also the close relative of the complainant. No doubt, it is true that even the testimony of an interested witness is relevant, but stricter scrutiny is required while adjudging the credence of such a witness. In the FIR, it is alleged that it was the complainant's wife who telephoned and called 108 ambulance, but PW5 has stated in her cross-examination that it was she who telephoned and called 108 ambulance. She has also stated that complainant's wife was so severely assaulted with the patal that she became ensanguined and fell unconscious. But there is no medical evidence to corroborate this fact.

Learned Counsel for the appellant placed his reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in case of Usman Ali v. Jagram & Others, (2009) 17 SCC 406, and Kamma Otukunta Ram Naidu v. Chereddy Pedda Subba Reddy & Others, (2003) 11 SCC 293. These judgments are not attracted in the present case. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in these verdicts that in a murder trial, sworn testimony of a witness cannot be rejected on this ground alone that the witness was interested when the same is consistent with the prosecution case and is supported by the medical evidence. As is discussed above, in the present case, neither the evidence of eyewitnesses is consistent with the prosecution case nor it is supported by the medical evidence. In fact, medical examination report and the testimony of the doctor who examined the PW1 (complainant) and PW2 are against the prosecution story. Further, no medical evidence has been produced to corroborate the averment that PW3 and PW4 were also assaulted and they suffered any injury and remained admitted for about 11 days in the government hospital. How is it possible that there is no medical evidence on record especially when these three witnesses remained admitted for such a long time in the government hospital.

The foregoing discussion of evidence and proposition of law clearly shows that it is a case where the prosecution has completely failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. I am in agreement with the finding recorded by the trial court. There is no force in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. Let the LCR be sent back.