State vs Balwant Singh and Others

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.—The instant criminal appeal has been filed by State challenging the judgment dated 11-3-1986 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Hanumangarh Camp Suratgarh in Sessions Case No. 57/85 whereby accused Balwant Singh and Richpal Singh alias Jaspal Singh were acquitted from the charges under Sections 326/34, 324/34 and 302/34, IPC and accused Bhagwan Singh alias Bagga Singh was though acquitted from the charge u/s 302/34, IPC while giving benefit of doubt but he was held guilty and convicted for committing offence under Sections 324 and 326, IPC.

During the pendency of this appeal, accused-respondent No. 3 Bhagwan Singh alias Bagga Singh died on 6-2-1990, therefore, vide order dated 14-12-1999, appeal against him was ordered to be abated.

According to the brief facts of the case, one Pala Ram S/o Hansraj Nayak filed an FIR at Police Station Hanumangarh Town narrating therein that his father Hansraj (deceased) used to look after the wine shop of liquor contractor and used to make complaint against Rai Sikhs who were caught for dealing in illicit liquor. Deceased Hansraj also made complaint against Balwant Singh resident of Gangagarh and upon his complaint liquor was seized. Therefore, Balwant Singh was having enmity with his father and on 3-7-1982 when sitting in the field of Nure Khan at about 9 p.m. Balwant Singh along with his son Jaspal Singh and Bagga Singh and Jagdish came there with weapon. As per complainant, Balwant Singh was having ''gandasi'' and Jaspal Singh and Bagga Singh was also armed with ''gandasi'' and Jagdish was having sword in his hand and at that time Bagga Singh inflicted a ''gandasi'' blow upon his left hand and ran away from that place and informed his father. Thereafter, his father came from his house with his brother Pema Ram when he reached in the street then Jaspal Singh inflicted blow on his father and all other accused also inflicted injuries with their respective weapon due to which Hansraj died.

Upon the aforesaid information, a case was registered u/s 302 and 307, IPC by Police Station Hanumangarh Town and thereafter usual investigation was conducted and ultimately after completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court to Judicial Magistrate First Class No. 1, Hanumangarh from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court and later on transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh Camp Suratgarh for trial. The trial Court heard arguments for framing charges and trial Court discharged the accused Jagdish from the charges levelled against him but framed charges for committing offence under Sections 302, 326 and 324/34, IPC against accused-respondents including accused-respondent Bhagwan Singh alias Bagga Singh, who died during the pendency of this appeal.

Learned trial Court after due trial acquitted all the accused-respondents for the charges levelled against them for committing offence u/s 302, 302/34, IPC and two accused-respondents Balwant Singh and Richpal Singh alias Jaspal Singh were acquitted from the charges levelled against them but late Bhagwan Singh alias Bagga Singh was convicted for committing offence u/s 326 and 324, IPC. Late Bhagwan Singh alias Bagga Singh filed an appeal against the so called conviction but due to his death, the said appeal was abated and this appeal filed by State as against him was also abated which is filed for convicting all the accused-respondents for charge for committing offence u/s 302/34.

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt but learned trial Court has erred in disbelieving the testimony of P.W. 2 Pola Ram and P.W. 3 Pema Ram. According to learned Public Prosecutor P.W. 2 Pola Ram is injured eye-witness who himself received injuries but learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the above fact that witness P.W. 2 Pola Ram himself was injured eye-witness, therefore, learned trial Judge has committed an error while discrediting the evidence of eye-witness P.W. 2 Pola Ram. The finding of learned trial Court with regard to distance of the witness from the place of occurrence is erroneous, therefore, the rejection of testimony of eye-witness is an error apparent on record because while discrediting the testimony of eye-witness, learned trial Court has acquitted all the accused-respondents from the offence u/s 302, IPC.

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that though FIR was lodged within two hours of the occurrence by injured eyewitness P.W. 2 Pola Ram, therefore, it left no charm of implicating any person falsely and complainant gave correct facts in the FIR and while recording statement of complainant P.W. 2 Pol a Ram though prosecution proved its case but learned trial Judge has wrongly acquitted the accused-respondents, therefore, it is a fit case in which all the accused-respondents were to be convicted for committing offence u/s 302/34, IPC but it has not been done by trial Court, therefore, this appeal has been filed by the State.

It is further argued by learned Public Prosecutor that as per medical evidence, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, learned trial Judge has committed a gross error while not appreciating the evidence in right prospects. Therefore, the judgment delivered by trial Court, discrediting the testimony of P.W. 2 Pola Ram and P.W. 3 Pema Ram deserves to be quashed and on the basis of testimony of these two witnesses, the accused-respondents are required to be penalized for committing offence u/s 302/34, IPC.

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for accused-respondents submits that the appeal against the respondent No. 3 Bhagwan Singh alias Bagga Singh who was convicted for committing offence u/s 326 and 324, IPC was abated and for other two accused-respondents namely Balwant Singh and Richpal Singh alias Jaspal Singh, it is submitted that learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of eye-witnesses namely P.W. 2 Pola Ram and P.W. 3 Pema Ram and rightly arrived at with the finding that as per medical report injuries were received by blunt weapon whereas the witnesses stated in their statements that all the persons were armed with the sharp edged weapons. Meaning thereby, learned trial Court has discredited the testimony of eyewitnesses on the ground that as per medical evidence deceased received injury by blunt weapon whereas as per prosecution story, accused-respondent Balwant Singh and Richpal Singh alias Jaspal Singh were armed with ''gandasi'', which is shaip edged weapon. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. Learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents from the charges levelled against them.

We have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties.

In this case, admittedly as per prosecution story there was enmity in between deceased and accused-respondent Bhagwan Singh alias Bagga Singh, who died during the pendency of this appeal and appeal filed by him against his conviction for offence under Sections 326 and 324 was abated but there is no whisper of any witness that there was any enmity in between deceased and accused-respondents Balwant Singh and Richpal Singh alias Jaspal Singh. Further as per allegations of the prosecution witnesses both the accused-respondents were armed with ''gandasi'' which is sharp edged weapon but injuries which is found upon the body of deceased were lacerated wounds or abrasions, therefore, the story of prosecution was not proved before the trial Court by the medical evidence.

We have re-appreciated the finding arrived at by learned trial Court in the impugned judgment.

In our opinion, the finding given by trial Court is well worded after considering and appreciating entire prosecution story and evidence on record. Admittedly as per statement of P.W. 2 Pola Ram and P.W. 3 Pema Ram, there is no allegation against the accused-respondents Balwant Singh and Richpal Singh alias Jaspal Singh that they inflicted any injury upon the body of deceased Hansraj and they were only standing at the place of occurrence. If it is so, and when motive is not proved and no injuries were caused by both the accused-respondents then obviously the learned trial Court has not committed any error while acquitting the accused-respondents Balwant Singh and Richpal Singh alias Jaspal Singh from the charges levelled against them.

Recently Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Arulvelu and Another Vs. State represented by the Public Prosecutor and Another, held that normally the finding of learned trial Court is not required to be interfered so also the appellate Court cannot substitute their own view while adjudicating the appeal against the acquittal. Further it was held that the appellate Court should be very slow in setting aside a judgment of acquittal where two views are possible. The appellate Court would not be justified in setting aside trial Court judgment unless it is either perverse or wholly unsustainable in law.

Further, in case of Balwant Bhai B. Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in (2009) 10 SCC 684 : AIR 2010 SCW 759 the Hon''ble Apex Court while appreciating the evidence found that if medical evidence is not corroborating the prosecution case then by virtue of Section 34, IPC, the appellant''s presence appears to be on shaky foundation.

Upon perusal and appreciation of evidence of the present case, it is revealed that there is no allegation for inflicting any injury by the accused-respondents Balwant Singh and Richpal Singh alias Jaspal Singh and allegation of eye-witnesses namely P.W. 2 Pala Ram and P.W. 3 Pema Ram is that they were present when occurrence took place. Further the medical evidence is not supporting the prosecution case.

In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by learned trial Court while acquitting both the accused-respondents namely Balwant Singh and Richpal Singh alias Jaspal Singh from the charges levelled against them.

Hence, while following the aforesaid judgments rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court and upon appreciation of evidence of present case, we are of the view that there is no force in this appeal filed by the State and the same is hereby dismissed.