CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 518-MA OF 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: November 16, 2009.
Parties Name
State of Haryana
..APPLICANT
VERSUS
Jaipal and others
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE JUSTICE MRS. DAYA CHAUDHARY
PRESENT: Mr. Naveen Malik, Addl. A.G., Haryana
for the applicant.
JASBIR SINGH, J.
ORDER.
The State of Haryana has filed this application under Section
378(3) Cr.P.C. against judgment dated May 20, 2009, acquitting the
respondents of the charges framed against them. It was allegation against
them that on October 31, 2005, at 11.47 AM, they had caused injuries to
Kalli Ram, Nehru, Devi Lal (PW10), Satbir, Krishan Kumar and Kamla
wife of Nehru of the complainant party.
Case of the prosecution, as noted by the trial Court in para No.
2 of the impugned judgment, reads thus:
“Devi Lal, complainant, is an agriculturist, who are four
brothers. Out of them, one brother, namely, Balu Ram is
CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 518-MA OF 2009 -2-residing in village Shahidawali while Devi Lal complainant,
Kalli Ram and Nehru are residing in village Manawali in their
Dhani, situated in the village. Bahadur Ram son of Jai Kishan
and Lekh Ram son of Sharwan were having land dispute which
was going on since long between them and a civil suit was
pending in the Court of Miss Ritu Y.K.Bahl, the then
Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Fatehabad. The Panchayat
had settled the dispute orally by way of asking both the parties
not to irrigate the disputed land. On 31.10.2005, Lekh Ram
and Bahadur were having their turn of water. At 11.47 AM,
Lekh Ram had taken his turn of water. At about 1 p.m., Lekh
Ram and his sons Chander Pal, Jaipal, Raja Ram and Rohtash
started taking the water after making a cut in the canal upon
which Krishan son of Bahadur, resident of village Manawali
asked them not to do so but Lekh Ram and his sons did not pay
any heed to him. Nehru and Kalli Ram, who are the real
brothers of Devi Lal also came there but in the meantime, Lekh
Ram gave a Lalkara to the persons who were already hidden by
him in the cotton field that they will teach a lesson to them to
restraining them from taking the water upon which Bhup Singh
son of Amar Singh, Rameshwar son of Ram Sawrup, Sube
Singh son of Krishan, Mahabir son of Ramji Lal, Ranbir Singh
son of Ramji Lal, Jaipal son of Lekh Ram, Kalu Ram son of
Amar Singh having Gandasi, Kapa, Bhala and rifle came out of
the field and started inflicting injuries upon the persons of Kali
Ram and Nehru with the help of respective weapons in their
CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 518-MA OF 2009 -3-hands while Jaipal son of Lekh Ram and Kalu Ram son of
Amar Singh fired the shots in the air with the help of rifles in
their hands. Chander Pal son of Lekh Ram, Ram Niwas son of
Chander Pal, Mahabir son of Kishan Lal, Kalu son of Kishan
Lal, Kuldeep son of Mahabir, Sube Singh son of Kishan Lal,
Kishan Lal son of Sharwan, Raja Ram son of Amar Singh,
Lekh Ram son of Sharwan, Kishan Lal son of Sharwan, Amar
Singh son of Sharwan, Mahabir son of Kishan Lal, Satpal son
of Ranbir, caste Gujar, residents of village Manwali also
inflicted injuries upon the persons of Kamla Devi wife of
Nehru, Krishn son of Bahadur and Satbir son of Balu Ram,
while Bhup Singh son of Amar Singh, Raja Ram son of Lekh
Ram, Satbir son of Lilu Ram inflicted injuries upon the various
parts of the body of Devi Lal, complainant, with the help of
Talwar, Gandasi and Lathi blows, as a result of which, Devi
Lal, complainant became unconscious, who fell down on the
ground. Balu Ram brother of Devi Lal, complainant, and Umed
Singh son of Prabhu Ram, resident of village Manwali after
hearing the noise of the quarrel came there and upon seeing
them, all the accused ran away from the spot with their
weapons throwing threats that they have saved themselves
today and that they will kill them in future. Balu Ram and
Kuldeep took the injured namely Nehru and Kalli Ram to the
hospital at Hisar after which report Ex. P1 was lodged by Devi
Lal, complainant, with the police on the basis of which FIR Ex.
P2 was registered against the accused.”
CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 518-MA OF 2009 -4-
On registration of an FIR, the Investigating Officer went to the
spot, prepared rough site plan with correct marginal notes. All the injured
were medico-legally examined by Dr. O.P.Dehimiwal (PW10). In the
meantime, Kalli Ram died. His post mortem examination was conducted.
The respondents – accused were arrested. On their interrogation, weapons
of offence were recovered, which were taken into possession against
recovery memos. On completion of investigation, final report was put in
Court for trial.
The respondents were charge-sheeted for commission of
offences punishable under Sections 148/302/307/325/326 and 323 read with
Section 149 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution produced 19 witnesses and also brought on
record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of
prosecution evidence, statements of the accused – respondents were
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations, pleaded
innocence and false implication. Respondents Jai Pal, Chander Pal, Rohtas,
Amar Singh, Lekh Ram, Kalu Ram, Raj Kumar alias Raja Ram and Rajpal
alias Raja Ram, in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
stated that on October 31, 2005, when they had gone to take turn of water,
they were assaulted by the complainant party. They also picked up the arms
and caused injuries to the opposite party in a right of private defence. They
also led evidence in defence. The trial Court, on appraisal of evidence,
believed the defence version and opined that it was a case of free fight. An
attempt was made by the prosecution to suppress the genesis of the
occurrence and accordingly the respondents were acquitted
CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 518-MA OF 2009 -5-
of the charges framed against them. Hence this appeal.
State counsel, by making reference to the prosecution evidence
on record, has vehemently contended that the impugned judgment was not
justified. The prosecution has proved on record guilt of the respondents,
however, they were wrongly acquitted by the trial Court. By making
reference to the medical evidence on record, he argued that causing of
injuries to the complainant party by the respondents – accused was proved
on record. Motive to cause injuries was also established by the prosecution.
The defence version has wrongly been accepted by the trial Court. He
prayed that the judgment under challenge be set aside and the respondents –
accused be punished for the offences committed by them.
After hearing counsel for the applicant, we are of the view that
no case is made out to interfere at the instance of the applicant in this case.
The trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has
suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and that the true version
was not brought to the notice of the Court. It was further observed that the
prosecution witnesses have wrongly denied receipt of injuries by the
respondents – accused and further that omission on the part of the
prosecution to explain injuries on the accused was fatal to the case of the
prosecution. This Court feels that the opinion arrived at by the trial Court is
perfectly justified. It has come on record that Dr. O.P.Dehimiwal (PW10)
medico-legally examined Kalli Ram and found five injuries on his person.
Thereafter Kalli Ram died and during post-mortem examination, these very
injuries were found at his person. Similarly, above named witness has
found six injuries at the person of Nehru, ten injuries at the person of Devi
Lal (PW10) and three injuries at the person of Satbir. On medical
CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 518-MA OF 2009 -6-
examination of Krishan Kumar, three injuries were found at his person.
Kamla received two injuries. As against this, the respondents – accused
produced Dr. Mohinder Kumar as DW1, who medico-legally examined the
accused party on October 31, 2005, and found two injuries on the person of
Jai Pal. Lekh Raj was also found to have suffered two injuries. Similarly,
Kalu Ram suffered three injuries. One injury was diagnosed at the person
of Amar Singh. One injury was detected at the person of Rohtash. One
injury was found on the person of Raja Ram and two injuries were found on
the person of Chander Pal, all from the accused – respondents side. Injuries
were found to be of the same duration like that of the complainant party.
The trial Court has noted with concern that the prosecution has failed to
give any explanation for injuries, received by the respondent side. Rather
all the prosecution witnesses made an attempt to suppress true facts from the
Court. By taking note of injuries on both the sides, trial Court rightly came
to the conclusion that it was a case of open fight between the parties, in
which members of both the factions received injuries. The Court has further
rightly found that the prosecution has failed to show on record that the
respondents – accused were the aggressors. The fight had commenced on
use of turn of canal water. This Court is of the opinion that in view of
evidence on record, the opinion formed by the trial Court is perfectly
justified and is as per evidence on record.
Even in cases, where two views are possible, ordinarily, the
view taken by the trial Court in favour of the accused is to be accepted.
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
CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 518-MA OF 2009 -7-
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.”
The same has happened in this case. Counsel for the applicant
has failed to show any misreading of evidence on the part of the trial Court,
which may necessitate interference in the judgment of acquittal.
Consequently, the application fails and the same is dismissed.
(JASBIR SINGH)
JUDGE
( DAYA CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
November 16, 2009.
DKC