Sansar Chand vs Bharat Singh and Others

M.L. Kaul, J.—This Acquittal Appeal by grant of Special Leave within the ambit of Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came

up for adjudication and has arisen out of a complaint lodged by the Appellant against the respondents in the Court of Sub-Judge, Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Reasi, u/s 323 of the Ranbir Penal Code and disposed of by him by his order dt. 17-5-1977, whereby the respondents

accused have been acquitted.

Briefly stated the complaint was filed before the trial Magistrate alleging therein that the accused-respondent: turned hostile towards the

complainant when he asked them to take care of the Camels who were usually causing damage to the crops and leaves of Dhaman trees owned by

the complainant-appellant. On such a bad relation the accused on 24-1-1973 with common intention surrounded him on the road at Bhaga and he

was beaten up mercilessly with Lathies and Stones as a result pf which some injuries were received by him on his head, nose and back. He was

saved from the clutches of the accused persons by some people around there and about the incident a report was lodged by his brother with the

police concerned on 25-1-1973. He was lifted to Reasi in a Palanquin and was hospitalized. He was admitted in the hospital and remained an

indoor patient till 1-2-1973 and although he was directed by the police to lodge a complaint u/s 323 R. P. C., because on the premises of the case

the police was not competent to take its cognizance, for it being a summons case.

On the trial of the case, the learned trial Magistrate after evaluating and sifting the evidence of the parties, had found that the complainant had

exaggerated and improved upon the prosecution story and, in no manner, the discrepancies found in the evidence recorded by the trial Magistrate,

were minor. That the complainant could not tender any explanation for causing delay in filing the complaint before the Magistrate, nor the record of

the hospital or the police was called to susbtantiate his version that as he remained admitted in the hospital from the date of occurrence till the date

of lodging the complaint, therefore, he could not file the complaint within that period.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also have gone through the .record on the file.

At the outset it can be said that the complainant has in unambiguous terms mentioned in the complaint that he was beaten up by the accused with

lathies, stones, fists, and blows due to which certain injuries were sustained by the complainant on his head, nose and back.

The complainant, while appearing as a witness in the Court has stated that he was beaten by the accused with Lathies alone and no mention of

stones, fists and blows was made in the statement. Rather he went to the extent to say that it was his brother who told him some 5 to 7 days after

the occurrence that even Shamboo accused had beaten him. This in itself creates a doubt in the mind of the Court that the accused Shamboo was

not at all present at the time the occurrence took place, but after due thought and deliberations a complaint was lodged in the Court in which the

name of Shamboo accused was also added.

From the evidence of the complainant and PW Parasram and Mania, who according to the prosecution story, have seen the occurrence with

their eyes it is categorically made known that they have lodged the complaint u/s 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the accused for

the Shamboo accused had damaged their crops through his camel and he was threatening them with their lives.

It appears from the evidence on record that the accused had lodged some cross litigation against the complainant and some of his witnesses,

which possibly has motivated him to lodge a complaint against them. There is no proof available on the record of the file that any complaint was

lodged with the Police by the brother of the complainant, for no record has been called from the police to substantiate the fact that a case was

registered by the police in the Roznamcha and it being a summons one, the brother of the complainant was directed to take proceedings in the

Court u/s 323 R. P. C. who according to complainant had lodged the initial report with the police about the occurrence. The complainant did not

make any effort to call for the record from the hospital to substantiate the fact that due to beating he had taken seriously ill and for that matter

remained admitted in the hospital ill the date a complaint was lodged in the Court. No doubt, the Doctor has appeared in the matter, but he has

nowhere stated that the injured was admitted in the hospital and he was under his care, for all the dates he remained in the hospital. It has come in

the evidence that Anant Ram and Seeta Ram were present on spot, but they have not been examined as witnesses and as they have not been

called in the Court to give evidence in the case, the presumption drawn would be that if summoned or called as witnesses by the complainant they

would have deposed against him.

It appears that the complainant has after due care and thought lodged a complaint in the Court and the delay of 8 to 10 days is not explained as

to why he could not lodge the complaint in the Court within 24 hours after the occurrence took place. No doubt, minor discrpencies some time

tend to strengthen the prosecution story to show that the veracity given by the witnesses are correct. But once the evidence suffers from the major

contradictions, as in the present case, Courts are bound not to rely upon such false and tainted evidence, which suffers from gross exaggeration

and it is impossible to build up a case of an offence out of the mass of lies told by the prosecution witnesses. The veracity of a witness and his

demeanor is being felt in its right perspective by the trial Court who examines a witness during the trial of the case and the impressions drawn by

him with regard to the correctness of his statement given by him before the Court, cannot be ordinarily dislodged, unless on the evidence so

recorded some other opinion is possible to be drawn by the Appellate Court.

In the case on hand, the trial Magistrate, has correctly on sifting of the prosecution evidence, found that there were major contradictions in the

evidence so set up by the prosecution and he felt that the story put forth by complainant was not free from shrouds of doubts and blemishes. All

the circumstances of the case have been taken into consideration by the trial Magistrate and he rightly found that the complainant has exaggerated

and improved upon the complaint made by him initially and the discrepancy judged from the tests of evidence, were found to be major and the

same have hit the prosecution case at its truthfulness. The case has taken place as far back as in the year 1973 and it has remained on Board in

different forms, till date when 21 years have elapsed and that is also a mitigating circumstance in favour of the accused-respondents, that they have

been dragged in the litigation by the complainant appellant on a flimsy and frivolous grounds.

Hence there is no ground in this appeal, on the basis of which the judgment and order passed by the trial Magistrate requires any interference,

either on fact or on the point of law.

The appeal thus fails and is dismissed.