* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 7th July, 2011
+ CRL.A.136/1999
STATE ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel
(Crl.) with Mr.Harsh Prabhakar,
Advocate
versus
DEWAN SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Savita Rao, Amicus Curiae
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. The appeal has reached for hearing today and since
none appears for the respondent, we had appointed Ms.Savita
Rao, Advocate who is present in Court today as the Amicus
Curiae and since the paper book consists of only 30 pages, 12
out of which are the deposition of witnesses recorded at the trial
and 7 are the exhibited documents, we had handed over the
paper book to learned Amicus Curiae in the forenoon with a
request that if learned counsel could prepare herself, arguments
could be heard in the post-lunch session.
2. Fee of learned counsel is fixed at `5,500/-, to be paid
by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
Crl.A.No.136/1999 Page 1 of 6
3. At the post-lunch session, learned Amicus Curiae has
expressed her readiness with the matter and hence we heard
arguments.
4. Charged with the offence punishable under Section
307 IPC relating to the injuries suffered by Sunil Kumar PW-2,
vide impugned judgment and order dated 8.6.1998, the
respondent has been acquitted by the learned Trial Judge.
5. It is settled law that pertaining to an order of
acquittal, if the Appellate Court finds that the view taken by the
learned Trial Judge is a plausible view, merely because another
view is equally possible would not be a grant to interfere with an
order of acquittal. Only if it is found that material evidence or
circumstance has been ignored by the learned Trial Judge or it is
found that a wrong principle of law has been applied to draw
inferences or if it is found that irrelevant material or irrelevant
circumstances have been considered by the learned Trial Judge,
alone then can the Appellate Court interfere.
6. A perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal
that the reasons for acquittal are penned by the learned Trial
Judge in paras 12 to 15 of the impugned decision, and we note
the same:-
“The prosecution examined injured (PW-2) and his
father (PW-3) as an eye witnesses of the occurrence.
From the perusal of the statement of PW-3, his
presence at the spot is highly doubtful. According to
him, accused came to his house at about 6 or 6:30 PM
alongwith 5/6 persons and started quarrelling with his
son PW-2 who was present in his house and he was
called outside the house and gave 5/6 knife blow. The
further stated that he took the injured to the hospital.
His testimony is not corroborated by PW-2. There are
material contradictions in the statement of these two
Crl.A.No.136/1999 Page 2 of 6
witnesses. In t he first instance according to PW-3,
incident took place at about 6 or 6:30 PM; whereas
according to the injured, it took place at about 8:00
PM; whereas according to the prosecution, the incident
took place at about 7:00 PM as per Rukka Ex.PW-6/A.
According to PW-2, accused gave one churi blow on
his stomach; whereas according to PW-3, accused
gave 5/6 knife blows to PW-2. He has nowhere stated
that PW-3 was present at the spot. According to him,
his mother took him to the hospital. I, think, if PW-3
had present at the spot, he would have definitely
taken the injured to the hospital instead of the mother
of the injured.
13. According to PW-2, he returned from his job
normally between 8:00 P.M to 9:00 P.M.; whereas
according to PW-3, on the day of the incident PW-2
returned to the house at about 5 or 6 PM. It does not
stand to reason when PW-2 himself admitted that he
returned from the job between 8 PM to 9 PM as to how
he could be in the house on the day of the alleged
incident at about 5 or 6 PM. Further, according to PW-
2, the quarrel took place for about 10/15 minutes;
whereas according to PW-3, it took about one hour.
According to PW-2, the police met him the hospital at
about 2 or 3 A.M. and recorded his statement:
whereas according to PW-3, police came in the
hospital at about 8:30 PM and recorded the statement
of his injured son when he was in semi-conscious
condition. PW-2 further stated in his cross
examination that his statement was recorded by the
police after 15 days of the incident at his house;
whereas his statement Ex.PW-2/A was recorded by the
I.O. on 3.2.97. This creates a doubt as to whether the
I.O. has manipulated his statement or the injured had
with-held the true facts.
14. According to PW-2, he was called in the street by
the accused which was not a thorough fare and it was
dark in the street where he was given knife blow. On
the other hand, PW-3 has stated that there were about
30/40 persons present in the street when the accused
gave knife blow to PW-2. It does not stand to reason
when so many persons were present in the street, as
to how the accused could give knife blow to the
injured in their presence, particularly when there was
Crl.A.No.136/1999 Page 3 of 6
a dark in the street. It is also admitted that accused
was not alone and it creates a doubt as to which of the
person with the accused had caused injury.
15. The perusal of the statement of PW-6 also
creates doubt regarding the investigation conducted
by him at the spot. According to him, he reached the
spot at about 8 PM when injured was removed to the
hospital at about 8:15 PM by him. Whereas, according
to injured PW-2, incident had taken place at about 8
PM. He further admitted that when he reached the
hospital, none of the eye witness was present except
the father Pw-3 of the injured. It means and includes
that PW-3 was not the eye witness but he was later on
made eye witness in connivance with the IO (PW-6). If
at all, he was present at the spot as to why he had
obtained his signatures on the statement of the
injured Ex.PW-2/A. Site plan was also not prepared at
the instance of PW-3. The aforesaid facts go to show
that PW-3 was not present at the spot at the time of
the alleged incident. Thus, there is a material
discrepancy in the statement of injured PW-2. His
statement does not inspire any confidence. It is also
admitted that he is also facing a trial in a case
instituted at the instance of the accused. Moreover,
accused had also injury which has not been explained
by the prosecution which is a fatal to it.”
7. From the evidence it is apparent that apart from Sunil
Kumar PW-2, the person injured, his father Hans Raj PW-3 were
the star witnesses of the prosecution. It is on account of
material discrepancies in the testimony of the two that the
learned Trial Judge has formed an opinion of giving the benefit
of doubt to the accused after factoring in the testimony of Roop
Chand DW-1.
8. Thus, we have proceeded to acquaint ourselves with
the testimony of the three witnesses i.e. PW-2, PW-3 and DW-1.
9. Indeed, we find the discrepancies noted by the
learned Trial Judge. Whereas the father says that the accused
Crl.A.No.136/1999 Page 4 of 6
came to his house at about 6:00 or 6:30 PM with 5/6 persons
and inflicted 5/6 knife blows on the person on his son, the
injured i.e. the son claims that the incident took place at 8:00
PM and indeed, the time of the incident, as per the FIR is stated
to be 7:00 PM. As against the father stating that his son was
given 5/6 knife blows, the son claims only 1 knife blow being
inflicted upon him. Surprisingly, we find that in the MLC of Sunil
the injuries noted, caused by a sharp edged weapon are 6. We
find it strange that Sunil claims being injured only once. From
the MLC we find that it is the mother of Sunil who accompanied
him to the hospital and had the father been present in the house
it was but natural that it was he who would have taken his son
to the hospital. As noted by the learned Trial Judge, we find that
Sunil claims to have returned home between 8:00 PM to 9:00 PM
but the father claims that his son returned home at 5:00 PM or
6:00 PM. If Sunil claims to have returned home at 8:00 PM it
assumes importance that the father claims the stabbing to have
taken place at 6:00 or 6:30 PM and even as per the challan the
stabbing took place at 7:00 PM. The discrepancies noted by the
learned Trial Judge as to the time and place when the police
recorded the statements of the father and son are indeed to be
found in their testimony. Indeed, reasons given by the learned
Trial Judge in para 15 that there is a doubt regarding the
investigation conducted by the IO at the spot are correct. The
claim of the IO that no eye witness except the father was at the
hospital is highly doubtful keeping in view the fact that as per
the MLC the injured was brought to Hindu Rao Hospital at 8:45
PM by his mother.
10. We concur with the reasoning of the learned Trial
Judge and hold that in view of the evidence of DW-1 that Sunil
Crl.A.No.136/1999 Page 5 of 6
had an altercation with 3/4 persons at the dispensary at B-Block,
Jahangir Puri, the accused needs to be extended the benefit of
doubt as has been extended by the learned Trial Judge.
11. We dismiss the appeal and discharge the personal
bond and surety bond furnished by the respondent.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SUNIL GAUR, J.
JULY 07, 2011
mm
Crl.A.No.136/1999 Page 6 of 6