AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
19 paragraphs · 1,095 words.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J
This appeal has been preferred by State of H.P. against judgment dated 30.7.2007, passed in Sessions Trial No. 7 FTC/7 of 2005/06, arising out of case FIR No. 85 of 2004 dated 26.7.2004, registered under Sections 308, 336, 341, 323, 506 and 34 IPC in Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, whereby respondents/accused persons have been acquitted of the charges framed against them.
2 Prosecution case is that on 17.7.2004 complainant Balbir Tegta, along with his son Sauvik Tegta, was coming from Chandigarh to Shimla in a car bearing registration No. HP-03A-0789 being driven by Amar Nath. At about 8 PM, they stopped their car near Parwanoo to have ‘Chana Chaat’ from a person selling on side of road. At some distance, an Indica car was also parked there. According to complainant, on seeing the complainant and his son, accused persons, who were sitting on parapet, boarded their Indica car and drove their car nearer to complainant party and after getting down from car attacked the complainant and his son after blocking the road with their vehicle and extended threat to teach a lesson to Pahadis, i.e. persons residing in hills. As per complaint, son of complainant was beaten and thrown down the road who fell on bushes close to parapet and that accused persons gave beatings to complainant also. However, victims managed to save themselves from accused and went in their vehicle to Police Barrier Parwanoo. Accused persons in their car followed the complainant party. Their car was stopped at Barrier. Out of three accused, only one accused Dilbagh Singh could be apprehended who disclosed his name who was under the influence of liquor and a lady was also sitting in that car.
3 Complainant lodged the report in Police Barrier Parwanoo, on the basis of which FIR was registered in Police Station Parwanoo. Complainant and his son were medically examined.
4 Investigation was carried out. During investigation, accused persons were arrested and medically examined and accused Dilbagh Singh was found under the influence of liquor.
5 Statements of witnesses were recorded and finding sufficient material to file challan against accused persons for commission of offence punishable under Sections 308, 342, 323, 336, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act, challan was presented in Court.
6 During trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses whereas accused persons after recording of their statements under Section 313 Cr.PC did not opt to lead any evidence in defence.
7 After hearing the parties and considering the material on record, Trial Court acquitted the accused persons for finding material contradictions and discrepancies in statements of parties.
8 As per prosecution case as also deposed in statements of prosecution witnesses, Sauvik Tegta was thrown down the road but he was saved because of bushes on spot and during this scuffle, he along with his father (complainant) received injuries and both of them were subjected to medical examination on the very same day.
9 The MLC of Sauvik Tegta is Ext.PW3/C wherein Medical Officer has noticed only two bruises on his arm. The Trial Court has rightly observed that in case Sauvik Tegta was beaten and thrown down the road in a manner as alleged he must have sustained more injuries on his body but not only two bruises on arm.
10 Incident took place on 17.7.2004 and complainant Balbir Tegta and his son Sauvik were medically examined on the very same day at 11.20 PM within a time of four hours. Injuries on the person of Balbir Tegta, recorded in MLC Ext.PW3/B, were as opined by Medical Officer, caused within a period of six hours, however, injuries on the body of Sauvik Tegta recorded in Ext.PW3/C were opined to have been caused within duration of 24 hours. Then it creates suspicion that where injuries on the body of complainant were received within six hours, injuries on body of his son were caused during last 24 hours. Though within 24 hours covers during 6 hours also, but definitely found alleged injuries older than 6 hours injuries. It creates doubt about claim that Sauvik Tegta had also received injuries in alleged occurrence and, therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that incident did not take place in the manner as claimed in prosecution case. It has been alleged by complainant party that they were beaten by fist blows and kicks inflicting injuries on their bodies including their legs but no such injuries corroborating alleged beatings were found on body of complainant or his son, which also creates doubt on truthfulness in version of complainant party.
11 It is further unbelievable that accused persons were allegedly at the distance of 10 metres from complainant party but they boarded in their car to come nearer to complainant party to attack and beat complainant and his son but without any reason. It appears that truth has been withheld from Investigating Agency as well as Court and story has been cooked up in order to frame the accused persons for some other reason known to complainant party.
12 It has also come in complaint that accused blocked the road and at the same time, it has been claimed that complainant party drove their car to Police Barrier. Had there been blockade of road, it would not have been possible for complainant party to drive their car to Police Barrier and further it is also unbelievable that accused persons followed the car of complainant party to Police Barrier and one of accused persons got down from car and others fled from spot that too from Barrier where police party was there and car of accused persons was allegedly stopped at Barrier.
13 It has been rightly observed by Trial Court that story of complainant party, as placed on record, is not believable. Veracity of version of complainant party is under cloud. No doubt some incident appears to have occurred but true genesis of the incident appears to have been withheld.
14 From above discussion, it is apparent that prosecution has failed to prove the case of complainant beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent, reliable and convincing evidence. It is settled that benefit of doubt is to be extended to accused.
15 Presumption of innocence of accused persons has been fortified by acquittal by trial Court.
16 In view of above discussion, I find no valid ground or reason warranting interference in acquittal of accused to allow the appeal preferred by State.
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. Bail bonds so furnished by respondents stand discharged.