State of Himachal Pradesh vs Manjeet Singh alias Pammi and Others

Justice V.K. Ahuja, J.—This is an appeal filed by State of Himachal Pradesh u/s 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., dated 11.6.2003, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 147, 307, 323 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 10.8.2000, a report was lodged with the police by one Mahant Ram in which he alleged that he had given taxi to his son who brought it to Kandi road, where they were told by one Pammi that no other person can take the passengers from that place. He told the said Pammi that they had taxi route permit for running the taxi. At this, the said person took a chhapper lying nearby and gave a blow with the said chhapper over his face. When his son Anil Kumar tried to rescue him, the said Pammi alongwith other four persons started giving beatings to his son with chhapper, legs and fists. His son Anil Kumar suffered injuries and because of the injuries suffered by him, he became unconscious, who was put in the vehicle. Those persons also gave a threat. When they were quarreling, the occurrence was seen by one Shiven dhar and the shopkeepers of Kandi road. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (II), Kangra, who committed the case to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, where the accused persons were tried under the Sections mentioned above leading to their acquittal.

We have heard Mr. Vivek Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant and Mr. Nimish Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, and have gone through the record of the case.

The submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant-State were that there was statement of the complainant corroborated by the statement of his son and another eye witness and as such, the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge can be termed as perverse and the findings so recorded deserve to be set aside.

On appraisal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, it is clear that the learned Sessions Judge has made a reference to the statement of the complainant/one of the injured, namely, Mahant Ram in which he had clearly stated that firstly he was given beatings by one Pammi with a chhapper on his face and when his son tried to save him, Pammi and four other accused persons also picked up chhappers and gave beatings to his son who became unconscious. Thus, it is clear that the complainant had clearly stated that firstly he was given beatings over his face with a chhapper by Pammi accused and thereafter Pammi and others picked up chhappers and hit his son over his head and blood started oozing out of the injuries and his son became unconscious.

The son of the complainant Anil Kumar appeared in the witness box as PW-2, who came up with other version that he saw his father sitting in his taxi and his father was bleeding. Manjeet accused was standing near the vehicle of his father. At that time, Pammi the principal accused was not having anything, which is contrary to the version of the complainant that this injury was caused in presence of PW-2 Anil Kumar by Pammi and when he tried to save him, he was also given beatings by all the accused persons. His son PW-2 Anil Kumar has nowhere stated about the injury having been inflicted by Pammi on the person of his father in his presence with a chhapper. He stated that his father was sitting in the taxi and the version of the complainant was that he took his unconscious son Anil Kumar in the taxi and at the time when he talked to Pammi, he was standing outside.

It is further in the statement of PW-2 Anil Kumar that all the accused persons pounced upon him and started striking him with dandas. He did not mention specifically that the said dandas were chhappers in the hands of all the accused persons. He stated that he suffered injuries on his ear, nose, shoulder and head, whereas his father PW-1 Mahant Ram has stated that his son was given blows with chhappers on his head and shoulder and did not state about other parts of body. PW-2 Anil Kumar is the son of the complainant, who, as per the complainant, had seen whole of the occurrence and there appears to be no justifiable reasons to have stated differently than what his father had deposed in the Court as well as alleged in the report lodged by him with the police. Thus, the statement of PW-1 Mahant Ram, as rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge, does not find corroboration on material particulars from the statement of PW-2 Anil Kumar, who is the son of the complainant and also suffered injuries. In the report lodged with the police Ext. PA, it was alleged that his son was attacked with chhappers, legs and fists, whereas the injured Anil Kumar PW-2 has stated about the blows having been given with dandas and there is no reference to leg or fist blows having been inflicted upon him.

The only eye witness examined in the case is PW-3 Shiven Dhar, though it was mentioned in the report lodged with the police that apart form this witness some shopkeepers of Kandi had also seen the occurrence but they were not examined. The said PW-3 Shiven Dhar, who is closely related to the complainant since his wife and the wife of the complainant are real sisters, had come up with the plea that when he reached Kandi Chowk, he saw accused beating Mahant Ram and Anil was lying unconscious. According to him, the beatings were being inflicted upon Mahant Ram and by that time, Anil Kumar had become unconscious. This is contrary to the version of PW-1 Mahant Ram and PW-2 Anil Kumar, who have stated that firstly Mahant Ram was given beatings, then Anil Kumar, who became unconscious and there is no mention of any injury having been inflicted thereafter on Mahant Ram after Anil Kumar became unconscious. His statement, therefore, does not corroborate the statement of the complainant, which also does not find due corroboration from the testimony of his son Anil Kumar, one of the injured.

The learned sessions Judge has also referred to the testimony of PW-5 Dr. Sushil Sharma and had observed that there was only one injury on the scalp and rest were complaint of pain on different parts of the body. The learned Sessions Judge had made a reference to the statement of the Medical Officer that if five persons strike a person with danda five times each, then the injured is likely to suffer injuries more in number. The Medical Officer did not observe any other injury except injury No. 1 and, therefore, it was concluded by the learned Sessions Judge that the medical evidence also does not corroborate the ocular version of the complainant and other witnesses. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge rightly concluded that the guilt of the respondents was not established. The findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, in view of the above discussion, cannot be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, we accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal preferred by the appellant, which stands dismissed.