State of Haryana vs Partap Singh and Others

Lisa Gill, J.

State of Haryana has preferred the present appeal impugning judgment dated 06.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Sirsa whereby all the respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 148, 307, 323, 506, read with Section 149 IPC. Pawan Kumar, who was charged for the offence punishable under Section 216 IPC was also acquitted but his acquittal has not been challenged.

FIR No. 88 dated 30.10.2011 was registered under Sections 148, 307, 323, 506, 216 read with Section 149 IPC on the statement of Balbir Singh. Alleged incident took place on 25.09.2011. Police party present at General Hospital Sirsa received medical ruqa regarding injured Balbir Singh and Mewa Singh along with medico legal reports. On opinion of the doctor being sought, injured were declared unfit to make a statement. Another ruqa regarding injuries sustained by accused Balbir Singh and Surjeet Singh was also received by the police. Balbir Singh was again declared unfit to make a statement on 26.09.2011 and Mewa Singh shifted to Sarvodaya Hospital, Hisar. Mewa Singh was declared unfit to make a statement at Sarvodaya Hospital, Hisar on 27.09.2011 on which the police officials after obtaining opinion of the doctor recorded the statement of injured complainant Balbir Singh. Balbir Singh narrated that he along with Devi Lal son of Sher Singh, Sher Singh son of Jagmal and Mewa Singh son of Chatar Singh were plucking cotton in their fields on 25.09.2011 at 2.15 p.m., Suddenly Hah Singh son of Nanak Chand (respondent No. 7), Partap son of Hari Singh (respondent No. 1), Bhal Singh and Bhoop Singh sons of Nanak Chand (respondents No. 2 and 3), Hanuman and Pritam sons of Partap Singh (respondents No. 10 and 11), Ram Kumar son of Hari Singh (respondent No. 8), Surjeet son of Bhal Singh (respondent No. 4) and Rajesh Kumar son of Bhoop Singh (respondent No. 9) came to their fields and assaulted them while they were having their meals. All the said accused were armed with lathies. They inflicted several injuries on their head, legs, back and other parts of the body. Accused Hari Singh declared that they shall be taught a lesson for taking their bricks to their house and he exhorted other accused to kill them. Hari Singh further declared that he would take care of future events. Accused persons were revealed to have fought with them about 5 days ago on account of leaving the bricks removed on digging a old canal. On 25.09.2011 itself at about 10.00 a.m. there had been a verbal altercation in their fields between Surjeet son of Bhal Singh and Bhal Singh son of Nanak Chand on one side and Mewa Singh injured on the other. The aforementioned persons had threatened to kill them. On being inflicted injuries, Balbir Singh etc. and Sushil son of Tara Chand working in nearby fields came to their rescue. Seeing the said persons, all the accused fled with their respective weapons. Injured were brought to the General Hospital, Sirsa by Chatar Singh on arranging a vehicle.

FIR, Ex. PA/A in this case was registered on 30.09.2011 after receiving opinion of the doctor. All the accused were proceeded against. Accused Manjit Singh was tried separately before the Juvenile Justice Board. On completion of investigation, report/challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented. All the accused except Pawan Kumar (not impleaded as respondent in this case) were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 323, 506 read with section 149 IPC. Pawan Kumar was proceeded against for the commission of offence punishable under Section 216 IPC.

As many as 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case against all the accused persons. All the accused pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, DSP Puran Chand Panwar, (DW 1) was examined, who has deposed that on investigation he had found accused Manjit, Ram Kumar and Hanuman to be innocent.

Learned trial Court on considering the facts and circumstances of the case acquitted all the accused of the charges against them while concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently argues that injured Mewa Singh had suffered injuries dangerous to life. There is sufficient evidence on record to prove commission of offence as alleged by all the accused persons. Trial Court has grossly erred in acquitting the accused in the wake of clear and cogent evidence against the accused. It is further submitted that injured witnesses have duly supported the prosecution version, which is corroborated by the medical evidence on record.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and find no ground to interfere in the well reasoned and logical judgment dated 06.12.2013.

It is a matter of record that the alleged incident took place on 25.09.2011. However, statement of none of the injured persons was recorded till 27.09.2011. Four persons i.e. Balbir Singh, Mewa Singh, Sher Singh and Devi Lal are alleged to have received injuries at the hands of 12 accused persons. Argument of learned counsel for the State that delay is sufficiently explained on account of the injured Balbir Singh and Mewa Singh being declared unfit to make a statement by the doctor on 25.09.2011 and 26.09.2011 is untenable. It is admitted by Balbir Singh in his cross examination that he had driven a vehicle from the place of occurrence to General Hospital, Sirsa. He is reflected to be in fit and conscious state at the time of his arrival in the hospital at 3.15 p.m. in his medico legal report (Ex. PE). He has admitted that except for Mewa Singh he alongwith Devi Lal and Sher Singh were very much conscious at the time of medico legal examination. Balbir Singh has been declared to be unfit to make a statement at 4.20 p.m. Be that as it may there is still no explanation as to why statements of Sher Singh and Devi Lal who were allegedly injured in the incident was not recorded by the police. Explanation by ASI Sube Singh (PW 5) that Sher Singh and Devi Lal did not get their statements recorded and only informed him orally does not improve the prosecution case.

The above circumstance assumes greater importance in the light of unexplained injuries on the person of the accused Bhoop Singh and Surjeet Singh. It is an admitted position that ruqa regarding accused Bhoop Singh and Surjeet Singh had also been received along with intimation in respect to the injuries on the four persons of the complainant side. Injuries on the said accused are not explained. In fact they have been completely denied. It is apparent that the genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed. At this juncture, it is relevant to note the defence raised by the accused. As per the defence, accused Surjeet Singh and Balbir Singh were present in their fields when the complainant party was taking a tractor of Ram Kumar driven by Sandeep through the fields of the accused persons. When accused Surjeet Singh and Balbir Singh asked them not to take their tractor within their fields as it would damage their crops, Chatar Singh reached there with a licenced gun and injuries were inflicted upon Balbir Singh and Surjeet Singh. They caused injuries in self defence upon the complainant party.

Accused respondent Krishan Kumar (respondent No. 5) was not named at the very outset. He is sought to be inculpated after nearly two months. He admittedly belongs to the same village and is known to the injured. There is no explanation for not naming him at an earlier stage.

Injuries suffered by four persons on the complainant side as detailed in para 18 of the impugned judgment indeed casts a doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version. It is highly improbable that in the wake of assault by 12 persons armed with lathi and Binda, it is only the injuries as detailed, which would be received.

Dr. Umesh Kalra (PW 7) in his cross examination has opined that injuries on the person of Mewa Singh can be caused by fall on hard surface and can be suffered by brick.

Another glaring aspect is non-examination of independent witnesses namely Krishan, Raj Kumar and Sushil, who allegedly reached the spot while injuries were being inflicted by the accused.

Keeping in view the factual conspectus of this case, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no strong or compelling reason for setting aside well reasoned judgment dated 06.12.2013. Simply because another view may be possible on the basis of evidence on record cannot be ground for setting aside acquittal of the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment, which would warrant interference by this Court.

Consequently, this appeal is dismissed.