State of H.P. vs Ranjit Kumar and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—The accused persons have put in appearance. Accused No. 1 Ranjit Kumar has been produced by constable Binder Kumar. No. 382, accused No. 2 Gagan Kumar by HHC Suresh Kumar No. 686, Bilas Kumar, accused No. 3 by constable Anup Kumar No. 654, accused No. 5 Rajinder Kumar by HHC Jarnail Singh No. 893, accused No. 6 Gurdial Singh by ASI with Constable Mr.Ramesh Kumar, 243, Police Station Shahpur and Subhash Kumar, accused No. 4 by LC Arvind Kumar No. 357, Police Line, Dharamshala, We have proceeded to hear the appeal.

This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 14.3.1995 delivered by the Learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 1994 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 147 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

The admitted facts of the case are that PW/3 Subhash Chand (complainant) retired from the Indian Army. According to him, he had been allotted a small piece of land measuring 5 feet x 5 feet at Chari by the State Government. He laid foundation on the said land for the construction of a shop. At the time of filing the complaint, he was carrying on business of fish vendor in a �Khokha� rented out by him in Chari Bazar. Gian Chand (PW/4) and Brahm Dass (not examined) are his brothers. According to the prosecution, on 5.9.1990 when the complainant alongwith his two brothers came to Chari Bazar at about 9.00 a.m, the accused persons accosted them. All the accused were armed with cricket bats, Khukhries, Tokka, cycle chains, dandas etc. Accused Ranjit, Subhash and Gurdial gave Khukhri and Tokka blows on the head of Subhash Chand, complainant. The remaining accused gave lathi and danda blows to Subhash Chand. His two brothers were also beaten up by the accused. All the seven accused after giving beatings to the complainant and his brothers ran away from the spot. All the three injured were first taken to the Chari hospital where they were given first aid and then they went to the Military Hospital at Yol. Statement of Subhash Chand (Ext.PF) was recorded u/s 154, Cr.P.C on 6.9.1990 and on the basis of this statement, FIR No. 94/90 (Ext.PF/1) was lodged with the police Station, Shahpur. After recording the FIR, the Investigating Officer carried on the investigation and examined the medical officer from the Military Hospital, Yol. The other witnesses were also examined. The weapons of offence and the blood stained clothes of the injured persons were taken into possession and finally, on the basis of the material collected during the investigation, the accused were charged with having committed the offences detailed here-in-above. They pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and claimed trial. After trial, the accused were acquitted. Hence the present appeal by the State.

At the outset, we may state that the defence of the accused is that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant and his brothers. According to the accused, at the relevant time, there were pro reservation and anti reservation demonstrations and during such demonstrations, a clash took place between the two groups in which the injured persons sustained injuries. The accused persons stated that they have never caused the injuries. However, it was alleged that since the injured persons especially Subhash Chand had enmity against Ranjeet Singh, accused, they lodged a false complaint.

It would be pertinent to mention here that only complainant Subhash Chand and his brother, PW/4 Gian Chand have supported the prosecution version. The second brother of the complainant who allegedly suffered injuries, i.e., Brahm Dass was not examined in Court and was given up as having been won over. Admittedly, he was the real brother of the main complainant and it is difficult to believe that he could have been won over. Even otherwise, this gives rise to the presumption that if he had been examined in Court, he would not have supported the prosecution.

The learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused came to the conclusion that there is a delay in lodging the FIR. Admittedly, the FIR was lodged more than 24 hours after the incident. This is not a case where the injured persons were unconscious or not in a position to lodge the FIR. As per the prosecution story itself, the injured were first taken to the hospital at Chari. The investigating Officer, PW/15 admitted that during the course of investigation, he examined the doctor at Chari Hospital who admitted it that the injured had been treated by him and after treatment, they had been discharged. In case the injured had suffered injuries in an assault at the hands of the accused, they would have definitely informed the Incharge of the hospital at Chari who in turn would normally be expected to have informed the police. Since this has not been done, we may presume that when the injured were taken to the hospital at Chari, they had not made any complaint against the accused persons.

We may also refer to Annexure PQ which is a copy of the Daily Diary Report registered at Police Station, Shahpur on 5.9.1990 itself. This report has been lodged at the instance of Feru Ram, ASI of the Police Station, Shahpur and in this report, it is stated that when Feru Ram, ASI alongwith other police officials was on duty at a place known as 39 miles, there was an anti reservation strike going on and they came to know that a clash had taken place between two groups and three persons had been admitted in the dispensary and some I.O alongwith police persons be sent there. After the receipt of the information, the ASI went to the hospital at Chari in an official vehicle. They were informed by the medical officer that the three injured persons had visited the dispensary and after being given first aid they went away and therefore, no MLC was issued. This is the first information of the incident recorded on 5.9.1990 itself within a short time of the incident taking place. This clearly indicates that the injuries suffered by the complainant and his brothers were suffered in a clash which took place between two groups and, therefore, in that first report, the accused were not named.

Even PW/3 and PW/4 admitted that when they went from Chari to Yol, they had crossed Dharamshala as well as a number of other police stations and could have easily lodged a complaint with the police on the way. Even after they were admitted in the Military Hospital, Yol, no information was given to the police till the next date. Therefore, the possibility of the injured having used this time to concoct a false story cannot be ruled out.

From the evidence led on record including the material produced in defence, it stands proved on record that Subhash Chand, complainant was convicted in a case under the Punjab Excise Act. Report of the probation officer was called for and probation was refused to Subhash Chand because of the report made against him by the Gram Panchayat. Admittedly, one of the accused Ranjit Singh is the Up Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat which gave the adverse report. It is also not disputed that the complainant is facing trial in a second case under the Punjab Excise Act. It also stands proved on record that the complainant contested election against accused Ranjit Singh for the post of Up Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and lost. It also stands proved that Subhash Chand is running a Khokha on the land which has not been allotted to him and the Gram Panchayat was taking action to evict him from the encroached portion of the land. In these circumstances, the delay in lodging the FIR assumes greater significance.

The inference that a false case has been lodged against the complainant is strengthened from the fact that one of the injured himself had not stepped into the witness box and none of the independent witnesses supported the prosecution and turned hostile. Even the witnesses to the recovery of the weapons of offence had not supported the prosecution version and according to them, these weapons were shown to them in the police station but were never recovered at the instance of the accused by the police in their presence.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the learned Trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. We find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly rejected. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged.