Sagli Ram vs Ram Lal and Another

Sabina, J.—The Respondents were tried for an offence under Sections 323, 324, 427, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, vide impugned judgment dated 17.11.2009, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar acquitted the Respondents of the charge framed against them. The applicant-complainant has filed this application u/s 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer for grant of leave to file an appeal against the order mentioned above.

The case of the complainant, as noticed by the trial Court in para No. 2 of its judgment, reads thus:

It is the case of the complainant that he is resident of village Binewal, Tehsil Garhshankar. Both the accused are residents of the same village. The complainant claims that the accused bore a grudge against him due to old enmity and also because they belong to a different groups in the village. The complainant used to sleep in the temporary/makeshift shelter i.e. "chhan" raised in his fields which are located towards western side of village Binewal. The complainant has sown sugarcane crop in a part of his fields. On 29.5.2004 at 9.30 p.m., the complainant was sleeping in his makeshift shelter/chhan and at that time, he heard some noise in his sugarcane fields. Then he woke up and saw that a buffalo had entered into the sugarcane crop and was destroying the crop. The complainant managed to drive out the said buffalo from the fields. He followed the buffalo for some distance so that the same could not enter his fields. The complainant alleged that when he was following the buffalo, he met the accused on the way near the graveyard of the village Binewal. The accused, on seeing the complainant raised the lalkara, "Ajj Tun Ikalla Millian Hian. Tainu Hun Sabak Sikhanden Han." "Farh Lau Isnu, Ajj Jaan Na Dio." Thereafter, both the accused pounced upon the complainant. They tried to hands of the complainant with a ''parna'' (piece of head cloth). The complainant claimed that he raised cries for help. His cries attracted the attention of Sohan Lal son of the Complainant and Dahni Ram son of Jog Raj, both residents of village Binewal. Both of them reached the spot of occurrence. At that time, accused had started beating the complainant. They were having ''lathis; in their hands. Accused No. 1 gave a ''lathi blow, which hit on the right eyebrow of the complainant. Thereafter accused No. 1 gave a slap just below the right eye of the complainant. The complainant claims that both the accused gave him severe beatings with their lathis, kicks and fists. The witnesses of the occurrence saved the complainant from the clutches of the accused. Thereafter, both the accused ran away with their respective weapons. Before leaving, they threatened the complainant by saying "Aj Taan Tun Bach Gian Hian, Phir Tainu Jinda Nahin Chhaddna." Thereafter the eye witness brought the complainant to his house. Since it was dark on that day and transport was not available, therefore, the complainant could not be taken to civil hospital, Garhshankar. On 30.5.2004 at 9.40 a.m, the complainant got himself medico-legally examined at Civil Hospital, Garhshankar. His medico legal report was prepared. He was also advised to take x-ray of his injuries. The complainant claims that he was discharged from the hospital on 5.6.2004.

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. 20 to 22 of its judgment, has observed as under:

In so far as the third point urged by the Ld. Defence Counsel is concerned, it is significant to note that complainant, in the present case, claims that accused first tied his hands with a ''parna''. However, when testifying in court, the complainant did not state that the accused tied his hands with the ''parna'' at the start of the occurrence. The complainant when testifying in the court, also did not explain the injuries given to him by the accused. In the complainant, however, the complainant claims that first accused No. 1 gave a lathi blow which hit on his right eye brow. Then accused No. 1 gave a fist blow on the right side of the face of the complainant, below the right eye. The third injury is said to be slap given by accused No. 2, just below the right eye of the complainant. Injury No. 1 which is located above the right eye brow is a reddish abrasion. This corresponds to the first injury alleged in the complaint. The complainant alleges that this injury was given by dang blow. It is a settled principle of medical jurisprudence that an abrasion is caused by rubbing the body against a hard surface and a ''dang'' blow cannot give an abrasion injury. Therefore, injury No. 1 cannot be caused with a dang blow. In so far as injury No. 2 is concerned, the same is a reddish blue contusion on the right side of the face. The injury No. 3 is again an abrasion. This corresponds with the injury alleged in the complaint, which was given by accused No. 2. I am of the considered view that with a slap, a person cannot give an abrasion injury to the person assaulted. An abrasion as already discussed above, is caused by rubbing against hard rough surface. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the medical evidence and the ocular evidence in the present case, do not match. Further, when testifying in the Court, the complainant did not give either the injuries given by the accused, nor the sequence of the injuries.

In so far as the fourth point urged by the Ld. Defence Counsel is concerned, in the ''calendra'' u/s 107/151 Code of Criminal Procedure proved as Ex.C-2 on the file, it is alleged by the complainant that he had followed the buffalo of the accused to the house of the accused, where he lodged a complaint with the accused regarding the damage caused to his crop by their buffalo. The complainant told the police that the accused Ram Lal and his son Binder assaulted him there. However, in the complaint the complainant has put up a different version. The complainant does not state that he followed the buffalo of the accused to their house. He only claims that he followed the buffalo, so that the same did not return to his fields and on the way, he met the accused who started beating him up. In the present complaint, the complainant claims that the occurrence took place in the ''Khad'' (ravine) near the graveyard. Therefore, it is clear that in the statement to police, which formed basis of the ''calendar'' Ex. C-2, place of occurrence is different, while in the complaint the place of occurrence is different. It is significant to note that CW-3 Dhani Ram, during his cross-examination, admits that the entire occurrence took place in the fields of the complainant. The CW-3 in his cross-examination, claims that when they reached near the fields of the complainant, they saw the accused assaulting the complainant in his fields. It is, therefore, clear that different place of occurrence is alleged in the complaint. The eye witness, on the other hand, claims that he saw the occurrence taking place in the fields of the complaint. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the complainant has failed to clearly establish the place where the occurrence took place.

Insofar as the fifth point urged by the Ld. Defence Counsel is concerned, there are clearly contradictions between the statements of the complainant CW-1 and the eye witness Dhani Ram CW-3. It is significant to note that the complainant appearing as CW-1 claims that he was taken to hospital by his son Sohan Lal and Dhani Ram, eye witness. The MLR Ex. C-1, on the other hand, shows that the complainant himself got admitted in the hospital and he was not taken to hospital by any one. On the other hand, CW-3 claims that he took the complainant to hospital. As already discussed above, the complainant (CW-1) denies that he is related with the eye witness Dhani Ram son of Yog Raj in any manner. On the other hand, CW-3 Dhani Ram admits that he and the complainant to each other and the complainant is related to him being his ''chacha'' from the brotherhood. The complainant claims that the occurrence took place in the ''Khad'' (ravine) near the graveyard, whereas, on the other hand, CW-3 claims that he saw that the accused beating up the complainant in his fields. The complainant alleges that at the time of occurrence, his sugarcane crop was about 5 feet tall. On the other hand, CW-3 claims that the sugarcane crop was only 11/2 to 2 feet tall at the time of occurrence.

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. No ground is made out to grant leave to file an appeal.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.