Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mange Ram vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 22 December, 2014
Bench: T.P.S. Mann, Shekher Dhawan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal D-607-DB of 2014
Date of Decision : December 22, 2014
Mange Ram
.....Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. SHEKHER DHAWAN
Present : Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate
for the appellant.
T.P.S. MANN, J.
Judgment dated 22.2.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar to the extent of acquitting respondent No.2-Siri Chand of the charge under Section 120-B IPC is under challenge in the present appeal filed by complainant-Mange Ram.
The trial Court had charged respondent-Siri Chand under Section 120-B IPC and Hans Raj, Roshani and Subhash under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC with the allegations that on 19.6.2011 at about 7.30 p.m., Roshani, who was armed with a kasia, had raised lalkara that their enemy Chottu Ram stood entrapped and would not be allowed to escape. This was followed by Hans Raj and Subhash attacking Chottu Ram with gandasis hitting him on his left cheek and on the back of his head. Complainant-Mange Ram and Amar Singh raised an alarm AJAY KUMAR 2015.01.08 11:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal D-607-DB of 2014 -2- and in the meantime Roshani gave a kasia blow on the head of Chottu Ram. The three accused, thereafter, ran away from the spot while carrying their respective weapons. While complainant- Mange Ram and Ram Niwas were in the process of taking care of Chottu Ram, Siri Chand raised a lalkara that he would not allow them to do so as he was carrying a gun and in case the dead body was removed, he would fire at them from the gun. Subsequently, when a number of persons assembled at the spot, a vehicle was arranged for shifting Chottu Ram to the hospital but on the way he succumbed to the injuries. It was alleged by complainant-Mange Ram that the accused after hatching a conspiracy with each other had murdered Chottu Ram. It was also alleged that both the parties had a scuffle at an earlier occasion in which respondent-Siri Chand had received injuries.
Vide impugned judgment, the trial Court acquitted respondent-Siri Chand of the charge under Section 120-B IPC whereas Hans Raj, Roshani and Subhash were held guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced, accordingly.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the impugned judgment, it is made out that in the entire occurrence in which Chottu Ram had received injuries, respondent-Siri Chand was not present at the spot. At a later stage when the complainant and Ram Niwas tried to remove AJAY KUMAR 2015.01.08 11:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal D-607-DB of 2014 -3- Chottu Ram to the hospital that respondent-Siri Chand climbed over the common wall and raised a lalkara that he would not allow the removal of injured-Chottu Ram and in case any one attempted to do so, he would fire at him. It is in evidence that the height of the common wall was seven feet. Further, respondent- Siri Chand had received fracture of his both legs a few days before the occurrence and in such a situation, it would have been highly improbable for respondent-Siri Chand to climb over the wall and then raise a lalkara. It is also not the case that when the occurrence was going on, respondent-Siri Chand was watching the same or had conspired with his co-accused to commit the murder of Chottu Ram. In such a situation, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court in acquitting respondent-Siri Chand of the charge under Section 120-B IPC.
The appeal is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed.
( T.P.S. MANN )
JUDGE
( SHEKHER DHAWAN )
December 22, 2014 JUDGE
ajay-1
AJAY KUMAR
2015.01.08 11:56
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh