AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Sanjay Karol, J.—For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 26.3.2001 accused were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 30.6.2005, passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 2003/36 of 2004, titled as State of H.P. versus Chaman Lal and others, all the accused stand acquitted of the charged offences. It is the case of prosecution that on 26.3.2001, Sh. Pawan Kumar (PW-8) was driving vehicle No. HP 22-5145 (Bus) from Hamirpur to Una. This bus was owned by Sh. Pritam Chand (PW-14). At that time Sh. Ram Parkash was working as a conductor of the bus. PW-14 and his brother Sh. Sunil Kumar (PW-10) were also travelling in the bus. There were other passengers also. At about 11.40 a.m. when the bus reached at bus stand Bhota, Sh. Sunil Kumar alighted from the same. He started talking with Sh. Pritam Chand and Sh. Vipin Kumar. Suddenly accused persons namely Chaman Lal (accused No. 1), Raj Kumar (accused No. 2), Battan Singh (accused No. 3), Chatter Singh (accused No. 4) and Sansar Chand (accused No. 5) came and started abusing Sh. Sunil Kumar and demanded money payable to them by Sh. Pritam Chand. When Sh. Pawan Kumar started the bus, accused forcibly stopped and dragged him down. They beat him up with a danda and iron rod. Accused also gave beatings to Sh. Sunil Kumar and Sh. Pritam Chand. Accused Chaman Lal gave blow with iron rod to Sh. Sunil Kumar as a result of which he fell down. He also gave a blow to Sh. Pritam Chand with an iron rod on his head. Sh. Purshotam Chand (PW-2), who runs a shop at the bus stand, intervened but even he was given beatings by the accused persons. Many persons were injured on the spot. Sh. Pawan Kumar reported the matter to the police and F.I.R. No. 73 of 2001 (Ext. PW 13/A), dated 26.3.2001 was registered at 1.30 p.m. at Police Station Hamirpur under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 506 IPC. SI-Balwant Singh (PW-13) commenced investigation. He got the injured medically examined through Dr. K. S. Rana (PW-11), Dr. Dhruv Sharma (PW-12) and Dr. Desh Raj Sharma (PW-1). Investigation revealed that even accused persons had sustained injuries and were also got medically examined through these very doctors. Police recovered danda (Ext. P1), iron rod (Ext. PW2) vide memo (Ext. PW 9/A) and blood stained shirt (Ext. P3) and baniyan (Ext. P4) of Sh. Sunil Kumar vide memo (Ext. PW 4/A). Medico Legal Certificate of Pawan Kumar (PW-8), accused Chaman and Sh. Ram Parkash were taken on record by the police. The same are Ext. PW 1/B, Ext. PW 1/C and Ext. PW 1/D respectively. MLC (Ext. PW 12/A) of Sh. Sunil Kumar along with report of the radiologist (Ext. PW 11/A and 12/D) were taken on record by the police. Police recorded statements of the relevant witnesses u/s 161 Cr. P.C. Investigation revealed that accused persons had given beatings to Sh. Purshottam Chand (PW-2), Sh. Pawan Kumar (PW-8 - driver), Sh. Ram Parkash (not examined - conductor of the bus), Sh. Vipin Kumar (PW-9), Sh. Sunil Kumar (PW-10) and Sh. Pritam Chand (PW-14). Injuries were both simple and grievous but injury sustained by Sh. Sunil Kumar was dangerous to life. With the completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court for trial.
Accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323,341 and 506 IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case, in all prosecution examined 14 witnesses and statements of the accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C. were also recorded.
Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offences, hence the present appeal.
In order to prove its case prosecution has to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, reliable and material piece of evidence that on 26.3.2001 all the accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly at bus stand Bhota. At that time they were armed with deadly weapons and attacked the complainant and other persons with the same. Also they gave beatings to injured Sunil Kumar with iron rod and danda and attempted to murder him, by causing dangerous injury. They wrongfully restrained the complainant and other injured persons and also threatened and criminally intimidated them.
That Sh. Pritam Chand and Sh. Sunil Kumar are real brothers is not in dispute. Sh. Parshottam is father in law of Sh. Pritam Chand is also not in dispute. Sh. Pawan Kumar driver of the bus who lodged the F.I.R. has not supported the prosecution case, in spite of the fact that he also is a relative of Sh. Sunil Kumar and Sh. Pritam Chand. Prosecution has not examined conductor Sh. Ram Parkash who also sustained injuries. That Sh. Vipan Kumar (PW-9) is also related to Sh. Pritam chand is not in dispute. Prosecution has examined one independent witness, i.e. Sh. Arun Kumar (PW-3) but even he has not supported the prosecution case at all. Significantly all relevant prosecution witnesses are close relatives.
The alleged incident took place on 26.3.2001 at about 11.40 a.m. at a public place i.e. bus stand Bhota. It has come on record, through testimonies of PW-2, PW-9 and PW-14 that at the time of alleged incident about 40 - 50 persons had gathered there. Significantly police did not associate any independent witnesses except PW-3. Why others were not associated/examined has not been explained. It is not the case of police/prosecution that independent witnesses had otherwise refused to associate themselves during investigation/trial.
PW-10 and PW-14 admit that accused present at the spot were in fact demanding money, which Sh. Pritam Chand had to pay to them. Now significantly it has come in testimonies of PW-10, PW 13 and PW-14 that essentially there was a commercial dispute between the accused and Sh. Pritam Chand and Sh. Sunil Kumar. In fact Sh. Pritam Chand states that "It is correct to suggest that dispute of committee money was of Rs. 84,000/- . It is correct to suggest that I was to pay Rs. 48,000/- to the accused".
It has also come on record that one of the accused persons i.e. Chaman Lal has a shop at bus stand Bhota. Presence of the accused at the spot is thus explainable. In fact from the cross examination of prosecution witnesses, defence of the accused that some members of the complainant party, had actually gone to the shop of accused Chaman Lal and in the presence of accused Raj Kumar and Chatter Singh inquired as to why and in what capacity he was demanding money from Sh. Sunil Kumar. This led to heated exchange of words resulting into scuffle in which both the parties gave blows to each other appears to be probable.
It has come in the uncontroverted testimony of PW-2 and PW-9 that fight between two groups went on for almost half hour. Thus it appears that it was free for all between the two groups.
Testimony of SI-Balwant Singh (PW-13) and Sh. Vipan Kumar (PW-9) establishes the fact that not only some of the accused persons sustained injuries but in fact were also got medically examined by the police on the very same day from the very same Doctors who examined the witnesses in the instant case. Prosecution has not disclosed, much less explained, such injuries sustained by these accused persons. There is no denial to this fact that injuries sustained by the accused are in relation to the very same incident. Thus viewing the aforesaid position in totality, genesis of the prosecution case that the accused being aggressors gave beatings to all the injured witnesses, without any sufficient cause appears to be doubtful.
Significantly Doctors (PW-11and PW-12) who examined Sh. Sunil Kumar, no doubt, have testified that one of the injuries sustained by him was grievous but clarified that it was not dangerous to life.
We also find versions and testimonies of prosecution witnesses to be contradictory in nature, apart from the fact that they remain uncorroborated from any independent witness. Creditworthiness of the witnesses itself is in doubt. Not much credence can be lent upon their testimonies. From their testimonies it cannot be deciphered as to which of the groups were actually the assailants. Hence, benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused.
Significantly Sh. Vipan Kumar (PW-9) and Sh. Arun Kumar (PW-3) have not supported the prosecution. In spite of their extensive cross examination nothing has come on record from which guilt of the accused can be inferred, must less established.
PW-9 states that the moment bus was stopped, accused gave beatings to Sh. Sunil Kumar (PW-10). But we find that this version of his stands materially contradicted by PW-10 himself who states that certain talks took place between him and the accused, which resulted into scuffle. Significantly PW-14 uncontrovertedly and unambiguously states that "It is correct to suggest that I cannot say which person had given beatings to whom". Now this totally knocks down the prosecution version, rendering the statements of other witnesses to be untrue and not worthy of credence. Incident took place in the presence of this witness. It is in this background corroboration of independent witness was necessary.
It is the case of prosecution that accused gave blows with danda and iron rod. Now PW-10 has improvised this version by stating that at the time of incident, accused Chaman Lal was in fact carrying a chain with himself. Now this weapon has not been recovered by the police. This renders this part of his statement to be untrustworthy.
Further according to Sh. Sunil Kumar, Chatter Singh and the accused persons demanded money from his brother. They also abused him. The moment he boarded the bus, accused dragged down the driver and gave beatings both to him and the driver. Now PW-8 does not support this version. He simply states that there was only one weapon of offence, i.e. danda which also was in the hand of Chatter Kumar. In spite of the fact that he is a close relative of Sh. Pritam Chand he has not supported the prosecution case at all. He is in no manner related to the accused persons and has no reason to depose in their favour.
Version given by PW-9 with regard to the actual events which took place, as has been observed earlier, stands materially contradicted by PW-10, who also admits that cause of scuffle was only the money which was demanded by the accused from Sh. Pritam Chand. Significantly he denies the fact that accused had also received injuries. Now why should he deny such fact? It is not evident from record. Also there is no explanation for the same. Importantly accused were also examined by the very same doctors in their presence. This renders his testimony to be untrustworthy.
To our mind version of PW-2 does not appear to be true. No doubt he has supported the prosecution by stating that two - three persons started quarelling with Pawan and Sunil Kumar and gave beatings to them with iron rod and danda. He states that he tried to intervene but even he was given beatings by the accused. But his statement does not end here. He exaggerates by stating that when his son Chaman, tried to intervene he also received injuries and they were rescued by Sh. Chander Shekhar, Sh. Arun and Sh. Neelu. At that time accused threatened to kill the complainant party. Version of this witness, to us, does not inspire confidence. To begin with he states that he was not aware as to whether people had gathered on the spot at the time when fighting was going on or not. This version is unbelievable. Fight took place in broad day light at a public place. In any event this version of his stands belied by the version given by PW-9 and PW-14. Most importantly this witness admits that some dispute was going on between him and accused Chaman over payment of rent of the shop. Hence not only he is relative of Sh. Pritam Chand but has other reason to falsely depose against the accused. He denies that accused also sustained injuries. For some strange reason he denies the cause of quarrel. Now had he been present at the spot he would have only corroborated the version given by Sh. Sunil Kumar, Sh. Pawan Kumar and Sh. Pritam Chand that genesis of the dispute was demand of money. It is not the case of prosecution that his son Chaman also received injuries. In any event Chaman was neither got medically examined nor associated by the police during investigation. Prosecution has also not examined Chaman, Chander Shekher or Neelu in Court.
Witnesses namely Sh. Ravinder Kumar (PW-4) and Sh. Ashok Datyal (PW-5) to recovery of clothes and weapons of offence have not supported the prosecution. They were declared hostile and in spite of their extensive cross examination nothing fruitful could come out in their testimonies. Thus, it cannot be established that police recovered material piece of evidence as they would want us to believe.
Sh. Arun Kumar (PW-3) has been examined in the Court but however he has not supported the prosecution. He was declared hostile and nothing fruitful could come out from his testimony. Significantly he admits that accused are not related to him.
Thus having carefully scrutinized the entire material on record, to us it appears that it was a case of sudden provocation over demand of money payable by Sh. Pritam Chand brother of Sh. Sunil Kumar to the accused which resulted into a scuffle in which both the parties gave beatings to each other. However, it could not be established as to which out of the two were the aggressor party. There is no legal evidence worth the name, of alleged threats, intimidation or unlawful assembly formed by the accused persons. The accused have had advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Md. Ankoos and Others Vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., it cannot be said that Court below has incorrectly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. Present appeal is thus dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.