CR. MISC. NO. 9-MA OF 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: February 18, 2009.
Parties Name
State of Haryana
...APPLICANT
VERSUS
Narain Singh etc.
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. P.S.Sullar, D.A.G., Haryana,
for the applicant.
JASBIR SINGH, J.
Judgment.
State of Haryana has filed this application under Section 378(3)
Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant leave to file an appeal against judgment and
order dated September 25. 2008 and September 27, 2008, respectively, vide
which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them for
commission of an offence under Section 307 IPC. However, they were
convicted and sentenced for commission of offences punishable under
Sections 148, 323, 325 read with Section 149 IPC.
It was allegation against the respondents that they in
furtherance of their common object had caused injuries to Risal Singh
(PW1). Regarding prosecution case, the trial Court has noticed the
following facts:
CR. MISC. NO. 9-MA OF 2009 -2-
“Shorn of unnecessary details, facts of prosecution case within
short compass are that on 05-08-2008, a telephonic message
was received from police post, General Hospital (GH), Bhiwani
about admission of injured Risal Singh son of Bhajju Singh,
Mohar Singh son of Risal Singh, Narain son of Godha Singh
and Harpal son of Hawa Singh in connection of some fight in
between them. Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) Mukhtiar Singh,
Investigating Officer (I.O) went to Civil Hospital, Bhiwani and
collected a rukka Ex. PO13 and Medico legal reports (MLRs)
of injured. He moved application Ex. P14 before doctor to
report about fitness of Risal Singh to make statement but he
was declared unfit to make statement. On 06-08-2006, he was
declared fit to make statement on that very application, so his
statement Ex. P01 was recorded, wherein it was stated by him
that on 05-08-2006, at about 6.00 p.m. He was sitting in front
of his shop. In the mean time, a vehicle make Sumo being
driven by accused Narain Singh stopped in front of his shop.
Accused Sadhu, Narain Singh, Balbir, Santu and Harpal
alighted from the same. Firstly, accused Narain Singh came and
caused injuries in between fingers of his left hand with knife.
Thereafter, Santu and Sadhu armed with ‘dandas’ (sticks)
caused injuries on his waist and chin. Surender armed with
danda caused injury on his waist. In the mean time, Balbir
armed with danda came running and gave push blow on his left
side. Thereafter, Ajit son of Balbir came running and started
giving slap and fist blows. An other son of Balbir, whose name
CR. MISC. NO. 9-MA OF 2009 -3-was not known to him, started giving kick and fist blows to
him. Sandeep son of Narain Singh also gave slap and fist blows
to him. Harpal son of Jagdish and nephew of Narain Singh also
came running. He was having hockey in his hand and gave
blow to him. On hearing noise, his son Mohar Singh came to
spot and accused also caused injuries to him. On hearing their
noise, his grand sons Amar son of Bir Singh, Deepak son of
Mahender Singh and Jittu son of Mohar Singh came to spot.
They rescued them from clutches of accused otherwise they
would have caused more injuries. Accused caused injuries
because a dispute was going on in between them since 10/ 12
years about land.”
On receipt of intimation, initially, DDR was recorded.
However, subsequent thereto, FIR No. 167 dated August 11, 2006, was
registered against the respondents for commission of offences under
Sections 148, 323, 325/ 149 IPC. On getting opinion of the Medical Board
on October 23, 2006, offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was also
added in the FIR. After completing necessary investigation, final report was
put in Court for trial.
The prosecution produced 13 witnesses and also brought on
record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of
prosecution evidence, statements of the respondents were recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material was put to them. They denied
the same and claimed false implication. They also led evidence in defence.
The trial Court on appraisal of evidence acquitted them, so far as charge
CR. MISC. NO. 9-MA OF 2009 -4-
under Section 307 IPC is concerned. However, they were convicted and
sentenced for other minor offences. Hence this application. While acquitting
them for commission of offence under Section 307 IPC, the trial Court has
observed as under:
“To prove an offence punishable under section 307 of IPC,
prosecution is supposed to show that a person did an act with
such intention or knowledge that said act can cause death. An
intention of an accused to cause death is must. In the present
case, injuries were not on vital parts of body of Risal Singh. As
per statement of PW.04, injuries were on non-vital parts. As per
opinion of PW.03, it cannot be presumed that injuries were
dangerous to life. It was nowhere stated by him that said injury
was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
Unless it is proved by prosecution that injury was sufficient to
cause death in ordinary course of nature, section 307 IPC is not
attracted. PW.10 gave treatment to Risal Singh but he nowhere
stated that injury was dangerous to life. Prosecution was
supposed to ask him about nature of injury. Further, PW.07 did
not conduct X-ray examination of Risal Singh. As per her
statement, report Ex. P10 was given by doctor Satish. She was
not in a position to tell that how this fracture can occur.
However, PW.08 and PW.10 admitted in their cross
examination that as Risal Singh was very old, so possibility of
this fracture by fall could not be ruled out. It is alleged by
accused that when PW.01 and PW.02 went to take possession
of land illegally, PW.01 fell on sticks and got his ribs fractured.
CR. MISC. NO. 9-MA OF 2009 -5-More so, as per statement of PW.10 , there was fracture of ribs
on left side but PW.09 stated that three ribs of right side were
fractured. If there were fractures on right side also then why
PW.10 did not state to that effect. As per report, there was
fracture of left ribs. As per statement of PW.09, fracture of right
ribs was about 21 days old. It shows that ribs of Risal Singh
were fractured much before 05.08.2006. It was stated by Risal
Singh in his statement Ex. P01 that push blows were given on
his left side but when he entered witness box as PW.01, it was
stated by him that thrust blows were given on right side. He has
changed his statement just to cover up statement of PW.09
because he stated about fracture of right ribs whereas treatment
was given about fracture of left ribs. In these circumstances, it
cannot be presumed that a case punishable under section 307 of
IPC is made out. At the most, it can be presumed that a case
punishable under Section 325 of IPC is made out because this
injury is covered by section 320 of IPC.”
We are of the opinion that the finding given by the trial Court is
perfectly justified and is as per evidence on record. Admittedly, except one,
other accused were armed with wooden sticks only. Had their intention been
to kill Risal Singh, they would have come fully armed with deadly weapons.
It is also not in dispute that injuries were also received by some of the
respondents at the time of alleged occurrence. The trial Court has also
noticed discrepancies in the medical statement regarding, fatal injury to
Risal Singh, which resulted into adding of Section 307 IPC in the FIR.
CR. MISC. NO. 9-MA OF 2009 -6-
Counsel for the applicant has failed to indicate any misreading of evidence
by the trial Court, on the basis of which any interference can be made by us.
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri
v. State of Gujarat, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) page 748, held that where, in a
case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused has to be
adopted by the Court.
A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa
Singh, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) page 775, while dealing with an appeal
against acquittal, has opined as under:-
“We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be
examined in the light of the observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1)
SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against
acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal
were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and
merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a
different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.”
Counsel for the State has failed to show that the trial Court has
committed any error on facts or material irregularity, which may necessitate
any interference by this Court.
For the reasons, mentioned above, this application fails and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
( Jasbir Singh )
Judge
( Jora Singh )
February 18, 2009. Judge
DKC