State of H.P. vs Jai Nand and Another

Sanjay Karol, J.—For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 31.8.1996, accused were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 30.11.1999 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arki, Distt. Solan, in Criminal Case No. 113/2 of 1996 titled as State of H.P. v. Jai Nand and Anr., accused stand acquitted of the charged offence.

It is the case of the prosecution that Sh. Dharam Pal (PW-1) was working in his fields on 31.8.1996. Accused Jai Nand and Vidhi Chand came there and started abusing him. Then accused Vidhi Chand pushed Dharam Pal as a result of which he fell down on the ground and accused Jai Nand gave blows with the ''darat'' (Ext.P3). Sh. Dharam Pal suffered injuries and blood started oozing out of the same. He cried for help. His wife Smt. Kunti Devi (PW-3) came along with her son Rajeev (not examined). Accused threatened the complainant and his family members for life. On the asking of Sh. Dharam Pal, Sh. Rajeev summoned Smt. Madhuwala (PW-2) Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Bhumpti, who came at the spot along with Up- Pradhan. One Mast Ram (PW-5) was also called. They found Dharam Pal lying on the spot in the field. On the basis of the complaint (Ext.PW-1/A), F.I.R. No. 55/96 (Ext.PW-8/A) dated 31.8.1996 was registered with Police Station Arki under Sections 326, 323, 506, 34 IPC. Accused admitted their guilt in the presence of Pradhan and Up-Pradhan. Complainant was carried to the hospital at Arki where he was got medically examined by Dr. Yuv Raj (PW-7) who issued MLC (Ext.PW-7/A). X-ray test was conducted and medical evidence taken on record. Police collected blood stained samples of the stones in the presence of Smt. Madhuwala (PW-2) and Sh. Ramesh Kumar (PW-4) vide memo Ext.PW-2/B. Weapon of offence was also taken vide recovery memo (Ext.PW-2/A) and clothes of the complainant vide memo Ext.PW-1/B. With the completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court for trial.

Accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 326 & 506 read with Section 34 IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case prosecution examined 10 witnesses and the statements of the accused u/s 313 Cr.PC were also recorded in which they took up the defence of innocence.

Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offence, hence the presence appeal.

Accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the principles laid down in Mohammed Ankoos and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

Now from the version of prosecution witnesses, it is quite apparent that except for complainant Dharam Pal (PW-1), none has witnessed the occurrence of the incident. From the version of PW-1 and Smt. Madhuwala (PW-2), it is quite apparent that there is long standing animosity and boundary dispute between the parties.

Statement of PW-1 with regard to the nature of the incident does not inspire confidence. According to him, accused came and suddenly started abusing him. Incident is alleged to have taken place on 31.8.1996 at about 6 A.M. PW-1 admits that ''darat'' actually belonged to him. Same was picked up by accused Jai Nand who then gave blow to him. Now this version does not inspire confidence. Presence of Jai Nand at the spot appears to be doubtful. He is not stated to be working in the fields. Significantly ''Darat'' was given by the wife of the complainant to the police. Prosecution witnesses state that blood was found at the spot. This fact does not stand proved by the material on record. No doubt PW-1 received injuries which stand proved by the doctors, but however this fact alone would not prove the guilt of the accused.

Smt. Kunti Devi (PW-3) as also Smt. Madhuwala (PW-2), were not present at the spot and witnessed the occurrence of the incident. They arrived at the spot after five minutes of the alleged occurrence. Who was the assailant, what transpired between the parties at the spot is not evident from the record. Version of the complainant alone does not inspire confidence It does not appear to be natural. We find that statements of the prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence.

Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Mohammed Ankoos (supra), it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the persons has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.