State through Police Station Satwari vs Ram Dass & Anr

Rajesh Sekhri, J

This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 20.10.2012, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu [“the trial Court”], vide which, respondents came to be acquitted of the charge under Sections 324/325/307/34 RPC.

As factual narration of the present case would unfurl, on 23.09.2001, PW-1 Suram Chand lodged a written report with Police Post, Pheliyan alleging inter alia that respondents, in furtherance of common criminal intention, at about 05:30 p.m attacked his elder sister-in-law (Bhabhi), PW-6 Persino Devi, when she had gone to harvest the crops. The complainant goes on to allege that respondent, Ram Dass, armed with a Parthi, made a murderous assault on PW-Persino Devi and inflicted 3-4 blows with intention to kill her, while respondent No.2 had caught hold of her. The injured was evacuated to the hospital by the relatives. On the receipt of this report, FIR No.113/2001 came to be registered by Police Station, Satwari through Rakesh Kumar Constable No.2213/J and the investigation culminated in the presentation of final report against the respondents.

The respondents came to be charged by the trial Court for the aforesaid offences vide order dated 03.07.2002, whereby they pleaded innocence and wished to face trial prompting the trial Court to ask for the prosecution evidence. The prosecution examined 13 out of 15 witnesses. Relevant excerpts of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses shall be referred as, when and where required.

Learned trial Court on critical examination of the prosecution evidence came to the conclusion that prosecution had failed to establish guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. As a result, they came to be acquitted.

The appellant-State is aggrieved of the impugned judgment, primarily, on the ground that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in the correct perspective and respondents have been acquitted despite availability of sufficient material on the record.

I have heard learned counsels for the parties and carefully gone through the record.

Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, learned Dy.AG appearing for the appellant-State has vehemently argued that testimony of the injured has been duly corroborated by the medical record and supported by the independent witness, PW-Puran Chand, therefore, respondents are liable to be convicted.

On the other side, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has defended the impugned judgment on the ground that testimony of the injured has not been corroborated by the Medical Officer PW-11 Kavi Raj, who is stated to have examined her after the occurrence, on the basis of which, respondents came to be acquitted by the trial Court.

It may be recalled that on 23.09.2001, complainant PW-Suram Chand lodged a written report in the concerned Police Post alleging inter alia that respondents attacked his sister-in-law, PW-Persino Devi at about 05.30 a.m., when she had gone to harvest the crops. It was alleged by the complainant that respondent-Ram Dass, who was armed with a Parthi, made a murderous assault on PW-Persino Devi and inflicted 3-4 blows with an intention to kill her, while other respondent caught hold of her.

Pertinently, PW-6 Persino Devi, the injured has nowhere stated in her statement that while respondent, Ram Dass attacked her with a Parthi, the other respondent had caught hold of her. The injured has stated that respondent, Ram Dass reached the spot with a Parthi in his hand and broke her arm by inflicting blows from its blunt side. She goes on to allege that accused inflicted four blows on her neck. However, PW-11 Dr. Kavi Raj, who examined the injured, has found only two incised wounds on the back of the neck of the injured. The Medical Officer has not stated that arm of the injured was broken or she had received any other injury. In cross examination, PW -11 Dr. Kavi Raj has also stated that the alleged weapon of offence was not Parthi, as Dharat and Parthi are not one and the same thing. Therefore, testimony of the injured PW-6 Persino Devi that she received four injuries on her neck and her arm was broken with the blunt side of the Parthi stands falsified by the Medical Officer, who is stated to have examined the injured after the occurrence.

It is evident from the above that statement of the injured PW-6 Persino Devi, is not only discrepant on material aspects, but found exaggerated and embellished.

The injured PW-6 Persino Devi has also stated in her cross examination that she was saved by PW-Puran Chand who took her to the hospital. However, PW-Puran Chand, in his cross examination, has stated that the injured fell unconscious and he did not try to carry her. The material independent witnesses including PWs Kuldeep Singh, Darshan Singh and Sher Singh have reflected ignorance about the occurrence. They were declared hostile and prosecution failed to elicit anything worth in the name of corroboration to the testimony of the injured, PW-6 Persino Devi.

Another staggering circumstance which goes against the prosecution is that statement of PW-1 Suram Chand, who had lodged written report in the present case, was deferred for production of the Daily Diary, which was never produced in the trial Court. As a result, statement of the complainant remained inconclusive. Since complainant was not produced by the prosecution after the deferment of his statement and was not subjected to cross examination, his statement cannot be read against the respondents.

Having regard to the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed and impugned judgment is upheld.

Disposed of.