Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikram Singh vs Raj Pal @ Pal & Ors on 31 October, 2014
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. D-1103-DB of 2014
Date of Decision : October 31, 2014
Vikram Singh
....Appellant
Versus
Raj Pal alias Pal and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMIT RAM
Present : Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate
for the appellant.
T.P.S. MANN, J.
The present appeal has been filed by the victim for challenging the judgment dated 19.2.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, whereby respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were acquitted of the charges under Sections 325 and 304 read with Section 34 IPC.
The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, was that on 9.1.2011 the appellant, alongwith his brother Ravi Kant and uncle Raghbir, was working as a labourer in the street, which was being made pucca by the Gram Panchayat. At about 11.00 AM, when the appellant was inside the temple and his uncle Raghbir was standing in the street outside the temple, respondent Raj Pal alias Pal came there with a danda in his hand. He was followed by his son Pardeep Kumar, who was empty handed. Raj Pal indulged in altercation and abused Raghbir, PARMESHWAR DUTT SHARMA 2014.11.26 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Appeal D-1103-DB of 2014 -2- uncle of the appellant, by asking him to return his mobile. On this Raghbir replied that he found the mobile about 20/25 days ago and had got the same repaired and, accordingly, asked Raj Pal to pay the money and take the mobile. On this Raj Pal gave a danda blow on the feet of his uncle Raghbir. Pardeep Kumar picked up a spade lying nearby and gave a blow with the same on the head of Raghbir, due to which he fell down and became unconscious. The appellant came out of the temple but was caught hold of by Bhalla and Chandi Ram. Pardeep Kumar gave a gandasi blow to the appellant on his head, whereas Raj Pal gave danda blows on his hands and feet. Thereafter, one Charna also came there to rescue the appellant but Raj Pal and Pardeep Kumar caused injuries to him also. The alarm raised by the appellant attracted his brother Ram Krishan, who also made an attempt to rescue the appellant and his uncle Raghbir but Raj Pal and Pardeep Kumar gave injuries to him as well.
On the statement made by the appellant, FIR under Sections 323, 325/34 IPC was registered against Raj Pal alias Pal and Bhalla alias Balwant, besides two others, namely, Pardeep Kumar and Chandi Ram. The accused were arrested and upon completion of investigation, challan was presented against them. On 17.4.2011, a telephonic message was received in the Police Station that the dead body of Raghbir was lying at G.H. Kaithal. Accordingly, ASI Suresh Kumar reached the hospital and recorded statement of Sandeep. The autopsy was conducted on the dead body of Raghbir. The doctor opined PARMESHWAR DUTT SHARMA 2014.11.26 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Appeal D-1103-DB of 2014 -3- that the cause of death was due to sequelae of injuries suffered on the head i.e. occipital region which were sufficient to cause death in the normal course of life. Accordingly, vide DDR No.24 dated 18.4.2011 offence under Section 304 IPC was added. The matter was further investigated and respondent Nos. 1 and 2, besides their two co-accused Pardeep Kumar and Chandi Ram were arrested. Later-on, supplementary challan was presented in the Court against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as accused Pardeep Kumar and Chandi Ram. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. However, before the charges could be framed, accused Chandi Ram died and, accordingly, proceedings against him were dropped. Charges under Sections 323, 325 and 304 read with Section 34 IPC were framed against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as accused Pardeep Kumar. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the trial, accused Pardeep Kumar also died and proceedings against him were dropped.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses. The accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C denied the evidence produced by the prosecution and stated that they were innocent and falsely implicated.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the commission of offences under Sections 325 and 304 read with Section 34 IPC. Accordingly, they were acquitted of the said charges. However, PARMESHWAR DUTT SHARMA 2014.11.26 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Appeal D-1103-DB of 2014 -4- they were convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and released on probation of good behaviour for a period of one year. Aggrieved of the acquittal of the accused-respondents under Sections 325 and 304 read with Section 34 IPC, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned judgment, this Court finds that it was Pardeep Kumar accused, who had caused bodily injury to Raghbir deceased on his occipital region with a spade which made him responsible for committing the offence under Section 304 IPC. However, the said act of causing injury was subsequent to Raj Pal alias Pal-accused giving a danda blow on the feet of Raghbir. Up-till that point of time, accused Pardeep Kumar was simply shown to be present at the spot and was un- armed. He then picked up a spade lying nearby and gave a blow with the same on the head of Raghbir. There was no previous enmity between the parties. Rather, the dispute between the parties was in regard to return of mobile which was found by Raghbir about 20/25 days ago and as he had got the same repaired, he wanted respondent- Raj Pal alias Pal to pay him those charges before taking the mobile. Under these circumstances, respondent Raj Pal alias Pal, besides two others, namely, Bhalla alias Balwant and Chandi Ram could not have shared common intention with Pardeep Kumar so as to be made them responsible for the offence under Section 304 IPC with the aid and assistance of Section 34 IPC. Similarly, the aforementioned injury on the head of Raghbir, PARMESHWAR DUTT SHARMA 2014.11.26 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Appeal D-1103-DB of 2014 -5- since deceased, which was caused by Pardeep Kumar was initially declared grievous and, thus, attracted the provisions of Section 325 IPC. However, as the said injury had been caused by Pardeep Kumar and by none else, the aforementioned analogy of common intention qua the said injury vis-a-vis the three co-accused of Pardeep Kumar would not be applicable, meaning thereby, that only Pardeep Kumar was liable for the commission of offence under Section 325 IPC, whereas Raj Pal alias Pal, Chandi Ram and Bhalla alias Balwant could not be held vicariously liable for the offence under Section 325 IPC with the aid and assistance of Section 34 IPC. Said Pardeep Kumar had died after framing of the charges and proceedings against him were dropped by the trial Court vide order dated 4.10.2012. As a result thereof, the charges under Sections 325 and 304 read with Section 34 IPC vanish into thin air vis- a-vis respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned judgment in so far as it pertains to the acquittal of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 325 and 304 read with Section 34 IPC.
Resultantly, the appeal is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed.
(T.P.S. MANN) JUDGE (GURMIT RAM) JUDGE October 31, 2014 pds.
PARMESHWAR DUTT SHARMA 2014.11.26 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh