IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.579-MA of 2008
Date of Decision: 15.01.2009
State of Haryana
Applicant
Versus
Dayanand
Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mrs.Neena Madan, Addl.A.G. Haryana for the applicant
.....
Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral)
Vide judgment dated 22.8.2008, passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Gurgaon, the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against
him.
By filing this application under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C., it has
been prayed by the State of Haryana that liberty be granted to file an appeal
against above said judgment.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
It was allegation against the respondent that on 8.7.2007, he had
hit Krishan Kumar (PW5) from behind, with a Car and had caused injuries to
him. Prosecution’s story, as noticed by the trial Court in judgment under
challenge, in paragraph No.2, reads thus:-
“On 8.7.2007, one doctor’s ruqqa Ex.PE from Pushpanjali
hospital, Gurgaon was received in the police station regarding
admission of patient namely Krishan Kumar in the said hospital
Criminal Misc. No.579-MA of 2008 2on account of road side accident, on the basis of which, Mohd.
Hussain Head Constable P.S.Pataudi reached the hospital and
moved application Ex.PK regarding fitness of the patient to
make the statement. The doctor on duty declared the patient
unfit to make statement vide opinion Ex.PK/1. On 9.7.2007, ASI
Jagdish Chand was present at Narhera turn on Bilaspur-
Pataudi Road alongwith other police officials when
complainant Mahender met him and submitted the complaint
Ex.PB with the allegations that on 8.7.07 at about 9 A.M. his
brother namely Krishan Kumar had gone to their fields to serve
tea to the labourers working in the fields. When he started for
the home and reached in front of the house of Sumer son of
Mohan Ram, he saw accused Daya Nand sitting in his Maruti
Alto Car while coloured. On seeing him, said Daya Nand came
out of his car and told him that he is purchasing the disputed
land of Laxman and asked him not to interfere in the deal failing
which he will teach hilm a lesson and kill him by crushing him
under his car. He further alleged that similar threat was
extended Daya Nand four days ago when both of them had an
exchange of words. On hearing their noise, Sumer Singh came
out of his house and Daya Nand started abusing his brother
Krishan and Sumer pacified both of them as both belonged to
the same village. Krishan went towards his Gitwar and Daya
Nand also went away. After ten minutes, Daya Nand returned
while driving his car at a high speed and hit Krishan from the
Criminal Misc. No.579-MA of 2008 3back side with an intention to kill him. On hearing the noise,
Sumer came out of his house, while he himself was already
present in his Gitwar. Both of them came at the spot, but
accused Daya Nand fled away from the spot along with his
vehicle. He as well as Sumer arranged a vehicle and took
Krishan to Narender Hospital, Pataudi, where he was given first
aid and was subsequently referred to Gurgaon for treatment.
They brought Krishan Kumar to Pushpanjali Hospital,
Gurgaon, where he is undergoing treatment. It has been further
alleged that accused Daya Nand tried to crush Krishan Kumar
under the speeding car with an intention to kill him.”
Injured was medico legally examined by Dr.Parbhat Kumar
(PW4) on 8.7.2007 at 10.00 AM. Following injuries were found at his
person:-
“1. Facial laceration and lacerations over scale (right thigh
parietal region forehead and left occipital region and
right of upper lip lateral surface.
2. There was crepts positive deformity positive over left
lower leg, chest clear, CVS S1 and S2 normal per
abdomen soft.”
As deposed by Dr.Sajender Kumar, Radiologist, on X-ray,
fracture of fibula at mid soft region was found.
On receipt of intimation (Ex.PB/2), formal FIR (Ex.PB/1) was
recorded against the respondent. In the meantime, the investigating officer
ASI Jagdish Chand (PW8) went to the spot, got prepared rough site plan of
Criminal Misc. No.579-MA of 2008 4
the place of occurrence (Ex.PG). He went to the hospital to record statement
of the injured, however, injured was declared unfit to make a statement.
Statement of the injured was recorded on 12.7.2007. Statements of other
witnesses were recorded on 13.7.2007 and 15.7.2007. Respondent-accused
was arrested on 17.7.2007.
On completion of investigation, final report was put in Court for
trial. Respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution
produced oral as well as documentary evidence to prove its case.
On conclusion of prosecution’s evidence, statement of the
respondent-accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating
material existing on record was put to him, to which he pleaded innocence
and false implication. He took up a different stand by stating that an
altercation had taken place between the injured and the accused, the
respondent was sitting in his car and when he started moving the same,
injured tried to pull him out of the car and in that process, he had fallen down
and received injuries.
The Court below on analysis of evidence on record found
defence version more probable and accordingly, acquitted the respondent of
the charge framed against him.
After hearing counsel for the applicant, we are not inclined to
interfere in this matter. Finding given by the trial Court is perfectly justified.
By taking note of injuries on the person of PW5, the trial Court has rightly
opined that he could not have suffered the injuries, in the way, in which those
were shown to have been caused in FIR. It was observed as under:-
Criminal Misc. No.579-MA of 2008 5
“As per version of PW5, once co-villager Sumer Singh
separated them after they had an exchange of words, he started
going towards his house while accused also went away, but
accused returned in his car and hit him from the back side when
he was walking on the kaccha portion of the road. PW6 also
deposed that accused came in his car driving it at a high speed.
PW5 also deposed that accused hit him from the middle front
portion of the car and he fell on the ground with his face
towards the ground and he suffered injuries on his forehead,
middle of head near eye, leg back of right shoulder and right
hip. As per MLR Ex.PD, PW5 suffered fracture in left lower leg
besides lacerations on face, scalp forehead right parietal
region, left occipital region and upper lip. Stand of the accused
is that they had an altercation and exchange of words while he
was sitting in the car and when he started moving the car, PW5
tried to pull him out of the car and fell in the process resulting
in the injuries in his left lower leg and face. However, I am of
the view that PW5 must have suffered injuries of greater
magnitude and he would have certainly been crushed under the
car, had the car hit him from behind at a high speed with its
front middle portion, whereas, he suffered fracture in the left
lower leg which shows that his left leg must have come under
the tyre of the car, when he was running alongwith car in order
to pull out the accused. The seat of injuries suffered by PW5
Krishan thus probablise the defence version.”
Criminal Misc. No.579-MA of 2008 6
The trial Court has also noticed that there was a delay of 32
hours in lodging the FIR, which the prosecution has failed to explain. It is
true that initially, PW5 Krishan Kumar, the injured was not fit to make the
statement, on certificate given by the doctor, his statement was recorded on
12.7.2007. As per prosecution’s version, PW6 Mahender had also seen the
occurrence. Admittedly, he brought the inured to the hospital and was
available throughout. However, he did not make any attempt to report the
matter to Police. It has also come on record that when the injured was
admitted in the hospital, it was intimated to the doctor that it was a case of
vehicular accident. PW6 has specifically stated that he had seen the police in
the hospital, despite that his statement was not recorded. The trial Court has
also noticed that motive to cause injuries was not very strong. There is no
independent corroboration to the prosecution’s story.
Counsel for the applicant has failed to show any misreading of
evidence on the part of the trial Court, which may necessitate any
interference by this Court.
Dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh)
Judge
15.1.2009 (Jora Singh)
gk Judge