Jeet Ram vs State of Haryana

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—The present criminal revision petition has been filed by Jeet Ram, the complainant-injured, challenging the judgment dated 09.10.2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 21.11.2011 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon, was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that initially Balbir, Umesh, Maharaj and Dheeraj along with their co-accused were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323 and 325 read with Section 149, IPC, by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution was able to produce Inspector Kuldeep Singh (PW1), who had prepared the report u/s 173, Cr.P.C.; Ram Kumar Hooda (PW2), a Radiographer, who had radiologically examined Jeet Ram under the supervision of Dr. Jai Narain; Jeet Ram (PW3), the injured; Sonu (PW4), the son of the petitioner, who had received injuries at the hands of the respondents-accused; Kashmiri (PW5), wife of the petitioner, who alleged to have witnessed the occurrence and Ram (PW6), the son of the petitioner, who also claimed himself to be a witness of the occurrence. Vide order dated 25.07.2011, the evidence of the prosecution was closed by order of the Court. Thereafter the statements of the respondents-accused in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C., were recorded. No evidence in defence was adduced. Vide judgment dated 21.11.2011, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon, acquitted Balbir, Umesh, Maharaj and Dheeraj of all the charges framed against them. Accused Desh Raj and Rishi were also acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 325 read with Section 149, IPC but they were found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 323, IPC. Vide order dated 22.11.2011, respondents-accused Desh Raj and Rishi were ordered to be released on probation for a period of six months, without supervision, on furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety each in the like amount. Resultantly, requisite probation and surety bonds were furnished by them and the same were accepted and attested on the same day.

Dis-satisfied with the judgment of acquittal dated 21.11.2011 and releasing the respondents-accused Desh Raj and Rishi on probation for the offence punishable u/s 323, IPC, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of Session, which was heard and decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide judgment dated 09.10.2012. The appellate Court upheld the judgment of learned trial Court. Hence, the petitioner-complainant has preferred this criminal revision petition challenging the judgment of acquittal of Balbir, Umesh, Maharaj and Dheeraj for all the offences; acquittal of Desh Raj and Rishi for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 325 read with Section 149, IPC, and release of Desh Raj and Rishi on probation for the offence punishable u/s 323, IPC.

Learned counsel contends that in spite of fact that 15 opportunities were granted to the prosecution for leading its entire evidence, the learned trial Court had gone wrong in closing the evidence of the prosecution by Court order. He further submits that it is the injured, who has suffered on account of the order of closure of the prosecution case by Court order, therefore, judgments of both the Courts below be set aside and matter be remitted to the learned trial Court for affording more time to the prosecution for leading its entire evidence.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance gone through the material available on record.

According to the allegations, respondent Nos. 2 to 7 had inflicted injuries on the person of complainant Jeet Ram on 10.04.2014 at about 11.00 A.M., when he was digging foundation. The said occurrence was witnessed by his wife Kashmiri and sons Sonu and Ramu. After filing of the chargesheet (report u/s 173, Cr.P.C.), respondents-accused were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323 and 325 read with Section 149, IPC. After affording 15 opportunities, as conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the prosecution failed to lead entire evidence, the learned trial Court closed the evidence of the prosecution by order. After completing other formalities of the trial, the learned trial Court acquitted all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 325 read with Section 149, IPC. However, respondents Desh Raj and Rishi were convicted for the offence punishable u/s 323, IPC, and ordered to be released on probation for a period of six months subject to their furnishing probation and surety bonds. Learned trial Court while discussing the arguments, inter alia, held that there were severe contradictions in the depositions of prosecution witnesses; Sonu (PW4), who claimed himself to be one of the injured, specifically admitted in his cross-examination that he could not tell which accused inflicted which injury to his father (Jeet Ram). The injuries stated by Sonu (PW4) were not found mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW3/A. In same fashion Jeet Ram, when appeared as PW3, did not depose as to which accused inflicted what injury to Sonu; the depositions of PW3 and PW4 were highly exaggerated; in spite of availability, no independent witness was examined by the prosecution; the prosecution miserably failed to substantiate that the accused were armed with deadly weapons; the prosecution miserably failed to substantiate that the respondents-accused had formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object, they caused injuries on the persons of Jeet Ram and Sonu; mere assembly of five or more persons would not lead the Court to presume that they had assembled on the spot in furtherance of their common object; the prosecution failed to substantiate the fact that Jeet Ram had received grievous injuries since Dr. Jai Narain, under whose supervision Jeet Ram was radiologically examined was not produced in the witness box; the deposition of PW2 Ram Kumar Hooda, a Radiographer, was not sufficient to hold that Jeet Ram had suffered the grievous injury and the said fact was considered to be a serious lacuna in the prosecution case; the prosecution even failed to produce the Investigating Officer of the case and, as such, the rough site plan of the place of occurrence could not be proved.

Appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment of acquittal and releasing Desh Raj and Rishi on probation was also dismissed by the learned Court of Session.

Both the Courts have assigned cogent reasons in support of acquittal of all the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 325 read with Section 149, IPC. The Courts below have rightly ordered to release respondents-accused Desh Raj and Rishi on probation in view of their conviction for the offence punishable u/s 323, IPC.

In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and finding that learned trial Court closed the prosecution case after affording sufficient opportunities (15 opportunities), no interference is called for by this Court while hearing the criminal revision petition.

Dismissed.