Satish vs State of Haryana

Kuldip Singh, J.

CRM No. 17565 of 2014

This is an application for condonation of delay of one day in filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of one day in filing the appeal is condoned.

Application stands disposed of.

CRA No. D-903-DB of 2014

Appellant/complainant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 18.12.2013 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide which accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them under Sections 304, 323, 325, 427, 447 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC.

The version put forward by Satish, complainant before the trial court was that his father Kesha Singh had retired from Co-operative Bank, Bhiwani in the year 1987. In the year 1987, he had purchased one acre land from Ram Singh son of Bakhtawar bearing khasra No. 127/15 for Rs. 12,000/- and got registered a sale deed dated 16.09.1987. However, family members of Ram Singh (accused party) wanted to forcibly take possession of the land. Therefore, complainant filed a civil suit in respect of the land and obtained a stay order. It was further alleged that on the intervening night of 18/19.08.2007 at about 3.00 a.m., the complainant was sleeping in the fields. He heard the noise of tractor and woke up. He saw that accused Dharambir, Bhopal and Randhir sons of Ram Singh, Leela @ Narender son of Raj Karan, Pawan son of Mahabir and Ram Kishan were sitting on the tractor and destroying his crops. He ran away to his house and called his mother Phoolwati and father Kesha Singh. It was further alleged that when they were going towards the fields, a tractor was seen coming near Baba Naga Dera. They tried to stop the tractor, which was being driven by accused Bhopal. Accused Dharambir gave a farsa blow on the person of Satish, complainant and accused Leela @ Narender abused his father Kesha Singh. Accused Pawan gave him a lathi blow and accused Randhir and Ram Kishan started beating him and he sustained injuries. Accused Bhopal hit his tractor against the father of the complainant. As a result of which his father fell down and died at the spot. All the accused fled away from the spot.

In this case, the complainant had lodged FIR No. 101, dated 19.08.2007 against accused Pawan, Bhopal, Leela @ Narender, Randhir, Dharambir and Ram Kishan. During investigation, accused Pawan was found innocent by the police. Offence u/s 302 IPC was deleted and challan was filed against the remaining accused under Sections 147, 148, 323, 427, 447 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC. The complainant had filed a private criminal complaint also.

After summoning, the accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 304, 323, 325, 427, 447, 148 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC.

To prove its case, the complainant examined as many as fourteen witnesses and also produced some documents.

In statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C., accused claimed innocence and produced some documents in defence.

After hearing learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the accused, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, acquitted the accused.

We have heard learned counsel for the complainant-appellant and have also carefully gone through the file.

A perusal of the judgment and documents placed on file shows that according to the complainant, his father died as accused Bhopal had hit his tractor against his father and his father fell down. However, postmortem report proved by Dr. R.P. Sharma, PW5 shows that Kesha Singh died as a result of coronary artery disease with chronic ischemic heart disease. Kesha Singh had not received any external injury on his body. It shows that the version put forward by the complainant qua the death of his father was rightly disbelieved by the trial Court.

The trial court also observed that motive for the crime is that father of the complainant had purchased one acre land in the year 1987 from Ram Singh through sale deed. The land was bearing khasra No. 127/15. The complainant did not prove the sale deed or any other document to show the ownership over the said land. No stay order of the civil court was produced. Rather Ramphal Patwari, PW1 produced the copy of khasra girdawari Ex. D2 to the police, which shows that the land bearing khasra No. 127/15 is in possession of accused Dharambir, Bhopal, Randhir, Rajpal and Nanbai widow of Ram Singh. In this way, the motive is also not proved.

No record of showing the destruction of Til crop by the accused was produced by the complainant.

So far as the alleged injuries of Satish, complainant are concerned, Dr. Anil Sharma, PW4 proved the X-ray report Ex. P4 and X-ray film Ex. P5 showing the fracture of tip of fifth meta carpal of left hand. However, the copy of MLR was not produced during trial. To prove the said injury, the statement of Dr. Anil Sharma merely proved the X-ray report of the complainant but does not prove the injuries. Therefore, the injuries on the person of Satish, complainant were not proved in accordance with law.

The complainant had claimed that accused Dharambir had given a farsa blow upon him, which hit on the little finger of his left hand but no injury was found on the little finger of the complainant.

The complainant had examined himself and his mother and their statements were recorded but both of them are contradictory. The trial court has also found that the statements of the complainant and his mother are discrepant about the number of injuries sustained by them and presence of the blood at the spot. Inspector Ajaib Singh, PW13 did not find any blood on the clothes of the complainant and at the spot. Therefore, the trial court disbelieved the prosecution story and acquitted the accused.

Form the foregoing discussion, we come to the conclusion that there is a contradiction between ocular and medical evidence. The motive in this case is also not proved. The prosecution evidence is full of discrepancies. Therefore, the trial court was justified in acquitting of the accused. The view taken by the trial court is one of the possible views. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. So, we do not find any merit in the present appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed.