State of H.P. vs Daya Ram and Others

V.K. Ahuja, J.—This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. u/s 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 3, Shimla, dated 19.3.2005, vide which, the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 451, 147, 148, 323, 506 read with 149 of I.P.C.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 30.8.2003, a report was lodged with the police by complainant Rattan Lal that on the previous day in the evening of 29.8.2003, wife of Daya Ram was opening a drainage and this was objected to by the complainant''s wife as to why the drainage was being constructed towards their tank. It was alleged that at this instance wife of Daya Ram named Parwati and Daya Ram gave abuses to his wife and also gave a threat to take her life. On the next morning at 6.45 P.M., he was standing in his courtyard and Daya Ram was also standing near his cow shed. He asked him as to why he had misbehaved with his wife. At this instance, Daya Ram came to his courtyard alongwith Danda and gave Danda blows to him on his head. Thereafter, the remaining accused persons also came there in furtherance of their common intention and all of them gave beatings to him with legs and fists. On hearing his cries, his wife came to the spot and she was also beaten and they also gave a threat to take their lives. On this report, a rapat was registered and after medical examination and investigation, the challan was filed before the Court of learned trial Court, who tried the respondents, leading to their acquittal, as detailed above.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that complainant Rattan Lal as PW-1, has alleged in the report that he was standing in his courtyard, while accused Daya Ram was standing near his cowshed when he asked as to why they abused his wife. When the said complainant appeared in the witness box as PW-1, he simply stated that he had requested the accused as to why he gave abuses to his wife on the previous evening. However, he did not state that the accused and his family members came to his courtyard and criminally trespassed into the same. He was silent as to where the occurrence had taken place. PW-2 Naina Devi also stated that on the second day when her husband asked Daya Ram in regard to the abuses, he started giving beatings to him. She stated that she came to the courtyard on hearing the noise, but did not specifically stated as to where the occurrence had taken place in their courtyard or all the accused persons had come to their courtyard. On the other hand, PW-3 Kumari Rekha daughter of PW-1 is specific that her father had gone alone to enquire from the accused as to why he had abused her mother, which suggests that the complainant had gone to the house of the accused or his courtyard and no accused persons had trespassed into his courtyard. She stated that firstly her father had gone and thereafter her mother had gone, meaning thereby the occurrence had not taken place in the courtyard of complainant party as alleged in the complaint or sought to be proved from the evidence.

Apart from the above, PW-1 Rattan Lal, PW-2 Naina Devi and PW-3 Kumari Rekha, all of them have admitted that a case was already got registered by the accused persons against them regarding beatings and thereafter, this report was lodged by them. This clearly shows that it was an afterthought and the facts were manipulated to lodge a report with the police. They have admitted the registration of the FIR and this fact also that when they learnt about the said FIR, they lodged the report with the police.

Apart from the above, it has also come in evidence of PW-1 Rattan Lal in his examination-in-chief itself that while he was being given beatings, all the accused persons and Daya Ram''s son Lachhi Ram also suffered injuries on his head. This clearly shows that it was a case of free fight, as observed by the learned trial Court, in which both the parties had suffered injuries.

In regard to the two independent witnesses, it is on record on the statements of these witnesses that they are inimical with the accused persons for the last number of years. PW-1 Rattan Lal admitted his enmity with the accused persons, but denied that they are not on talking terms, which stands proved from the further statement that they are not visiting each other on marriage etc. and they are on litigation for the last number of years, which fact was also admitted by PW-2 Naina Devi and her daughter PW-3 Kumari Rekha. This clearly shows that there is long standing enmity in between the parties and civil disputes are also going on and, therefore, possibility of false implication in the facts of the case cannot be ruled out. Both the independent witnesses are also not on talking terms with the accused persons, which suggests that they may be procured witnesses. One of the independent witnesses PW-4 Gian Chand was examined, who has stated that he had gone to the spot only on hearing the cries and not that he had witnessed the occurrence from the very beginning. He admitted that they are not on talking terms with the accused persons since long. PW-4 Gian Chand has stated that he was called by Rattan Lal, whereas Rattan Lal has stated that he was called by his children.

PW-5 Ram Dayal, the other eye witness, had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. He stated that nothing happened in his presence and rather admitted that no quarrel took place in between the accused and Rattan Lal in his presence. It is also in evidence that there are other houses near the place of occurrence and cries from the courtyard of PW-1 can be heard in those houses, but only two persons were associated, who were not on talking terms with the accused party and one of them had turned hostile and had not substantiated the prosecution story.

In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the net conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution cannot be termed as perverse, calling for an interference by this Court and as such, the same is not liable to be interfered with.

In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged forthwith.