Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh vs Avtar Singh And Others on 21 January, 2014
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
CRA-S-1214-SBA-2000 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh.
CRA-S-1214-SBA-2000 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- January 21, 2014
Darshan Singh Appellant-Complainant
Versus
Avtar Singh and others Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI.
Present: - Mr. Manish Dadwal, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, DAG, Punjab.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI,J.
The present appeal has been filed by appellant- complainant Darshan Singh challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 20.01.2000 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar, whereby the respondent-accused Avtar Singh, who was charged for the offence punishable under Section 325, IPC, was acquitted.
Brief facts of the case are that appellant-complainant Darshan Singh was resident of village Dhamai (Sub Division Garhshankar). Respondent-accused was sarpanch of village Dhamai. On 07.07.1997, at about 11 A.M., the respondent- accused went to check the pavements work which was going on in the street near the house of the complainant. The appellant- complainant asked the respondent-accused to firstly get the already paved bricks removed from the street and, thereafter, to Aggarwal Anoop Kumar 2014.01.27 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High court Chandigarh CRA-S-1214-SBA-2000 (O&M) 2 get the fresh pavement work done. The respondent-accused with common intention of his co-accused (since discharged at the stage of framing of charges) said that they would do whatever was liked by them and how the appellant-complainant was concerned with the same. Respondent-accused Avtar Singh inflicted a stick blow on the person of appellant-complainant which landed on the two middle fingers of his left hand. Resultantly, the ring finger of the left hand of the appellant- complainant was fractured. The respondent-accused inflicted a fist blow on the left side of the chest of the appellant- complainant. The occurrence was witnessed by Gurdial Singh (PW3) and Chanchal Singh (not examined) and many other residents of village Dhamai. The appellant-complainant got himself medico legally examined from Dr. Raghbir Singh (PW1) on the same day and thereafter, the matter was reported to the police and the version of the appellant-complainant was entered into daily diary register. The appellant-complainant was radiologically examined by Dr. Surinder Kaur Gangar (PW4) on 10.07.1997, who detected fracture of proximal phalanx of ring finger. After receipt of the X-ray report, FIR No. 72, dated 18.07.1997, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34, IPC, was registered at Police Station, Garhshankar.
After completion of the investigation, the police came to the conclusion that the allegations levelled against the respondent-accused were not substantiated and as such Aggarwal Anoop Kumar 2014.01.27 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High court Chandigarh CRA-S-1214-SBA-2000 (O&M) 3 presented the cancellation report.
The appellant-complainant dissatisfied with the conclusion arrived at by the police filed the complaint on 19.05.1998 before the learned Sub Division Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar.
After recording the preliminary evidence the respondent- accused and his co-accused Mangal Singh Panch (since discharged) were ordered to be summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34, IPC, by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar, vide his order dated 27.10.1998.
The respondent-accused and his co-accused Mangal Singh in response to the summoning order did appear before the court below and, thereafter, the appellant-complainant was directed to lead the pre-charge evidence and as such he examined the following witnesses:-
PW1 Dr. Raghbir Singh, Medical Officer, who had medico legally examined the appellant-complainant on 07.07.1997 and found the following injuries on his person:-
1. Diffused swelling on the base of left ring finger on the dorsal aspect of the hand. In the centre of the swelling, a lacerated wound measuring 1 cm x 1 cm was present. X-ray was advised.
2. Patient complained of pain in the left lateral side of the back due to blunt injury. Aggarwal Anoop Kumar 2014.01.27 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High court Chandigarh CRA-S-1214-SBA-2000 (O&M) 4
However, no visible injuries were seen.
X-ray was advised .
PW2 Darshan Singh appellant-complainant appeared as his own witness and reiterated the facts as enumerated in the complaint.
PW3 Gurdial Singh.
Singh He claimed himself to be an eye witness of the occurrence and narrated about the incident.
PW4 Dr. Surinder Kaur Gangar. She had radiologically examined the appellant-complainant and found the fracture of proximal phalanx of ring finger.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties with regard to the framing of the charges, the learned trial court found that no prima facie case was disclosed against Mangal Singh and as such he was discharged but the respondent-accused was ordered to be charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 325, IPC, and as such the charge for the said offence was framed against the respondent-accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In post-charge evidence, the respondent-accused further cross examined the appellant-complainant and, thereafter, suffered the statement that he did not want to further cross- examine any other witness of the complainant.
The statement of the respondent-accused in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C., was recorded. He denied the incriminating substances appearing against him and pleaded false implication.
Thereafter, an application for additional evidence Aggarwal Anoop Kumar 2014.01.27 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High court Chandigarh CRA-S-1214-SBA-2000 (O&M) 5 presented by the appellant-complainant was moved and the same was allowed. The appellant-complainant examined Constable Pushpinder Singh as PW5 in additional evidence who proved the copy of the FIR (Ex.PW5/A).
After completion of the additional evidence, supplementary statement of the respondent-accused in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C. was also recorded and he further denied the incriminating material appearing against him.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court identified the following issue for determination:-
" Whether accused Avtar Singh caused grievous injury on the person of complainant on 07.07.1997 within the area of village Dhamai by a 'Soti' blow."
Learned trial court discarded the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent-accused with regard to the delay in filing of the complaint, however, while accepting the remaining submissions passed the judgment of acquittal by making the following observations:-
" Counsel for the accused argued that there are contradictions in the testimonies of the complainant and PW3 as PW2 complainant has deposed that the accused was getting street brick paved and when the complainant asked them to first remove already paved bricks, they caused injuries on Aggarwal Anoop Kumar 2014.01.27 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High court Chandigarh CRA-S-1214-SBA-2000 (O&M) 6 the person of the complainant, whereas PW3 has deposed that the accused was getting construction of drain., and when the complainant asked them that they should not construct the drain, the accused started arguing with the complainant. Counsel for the accused argued that both PW2 and PW3 have deposed contradictory to each regarding the manner in which fight started , whereas counsel for the complainant argued that there is no contradiction in the testimonies of both the witnesses as drains are part of the street and while bricks paving street, drains are also constructed. But I find no weight in the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant as the complainant has deposed that he objected to the accused on the ground that they should remove the earlier bricks and then brick paved the street, whereas PW3 has deposed that the complainant asked the accused not to construct drain. So, the version given by both the PWs is contradictory to each other.
Counsel for the accused further argued that the complainant has contradicted his version of the complaint as while appearing as PW2, he deposed in his examination-in-chief that accused No.1 with common intention of accused No.2 gave a stick blow on him, which fell upon two middle fingers Aggarwal Anoop Kumar 2014.01.27 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High court Chandigarh CRA-S-1214-SBA-2000 (O&M) 7 of his left hand as he tried to save himself, as a result of blow, ring finger of his left hand fractured and then the accused left the place. In his examination-in-chief, the complainant has no where deposed that any fist blow was given by the accused No.1 or accused No.2 to the complainant. Whereas in para No.2 of the complaint, the complainant has alleged that thereafter, both the accused gave fist blows on the body of the complainant and on the left side of the chest of the complainant. PW3 Gurdial Singh has deposed that both the accused gave fist blows on the chest of the complainant and abused him. So, the testimony of the complainant is contradictory to both complaint as well as testimony of PW3 and medical evidence, wherein injury No.2 on the person of the complainant is shown as under:-
" Patient complained of pains in the left lateral side of the back due to blunt injury. However, no visible injury seen. Advised X-ray."
So, the testimony of the complainant is contradictory to the medical evidence as in his testimony, the complainant has no where deposed that the accused caused any injury on his person on the left lateral side of the back. Even PW3 Gurdial Singh has not deposed about any injury on this part, of the body of the complainant, rather he has Aggarwal Anoop Kumar 2014.01.27 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High court Chandigarh CRA-S-1214-SBA-2000 (O&M) 8 deposed that both the accused gave fist blows on the chest of the complainant which is not corroborated by the complainant. The testimony of the complainant is also contradictory to the medical evidence as the complainant has deposed in his cross-examination that blood was coming out from the injury, again said, blood was coming out from the injury on the finger, whereas in M.L.R. Ex.P1, Doctor has not reported about any blood being present, rather injury No.1 is a lacerated wound and injury No.2 is complain of pain and no visible injury was present. So, as per medical evidence, blood has not oozed out of any of the injury on the person of the complainant. The complainant has deposed in his cross-examination that he was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Garhshankar, by Lakhvir Singh, whereas as per copy of M.L.R. Ex.P1, the person who got admitted the complainant in Civil Hospital, Garhshankar, was Surjit Singh. PW3 deposed that the complainant was taken to the Hospital from the place of occurrence, whereas the complainant deposed that first, he was taken to his house, where he took milk and then they came to the hospital. So, in such circumstances, the testimony of both complainant and PW3 is contradictory to each other regarding material particulars and testimony of the complainant is Aggarwal Anoop Kumar 2014.01.27 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High court Chandigarh CRA-S-1214-SBA-2000 (O&M) 9 contradictory to the medical evidence as well as complaint filed by the complainant. In this case, the police has also investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that the complaint of the complainant is false and no such occurrence has taken place. Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held in Vakil Singh Versus State of Haryana, 1998 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal), 165, that investigation is primarily function of the State Police and if during the course of investigation, a particular person has been found to be innocent and that investigation has not been doubted by the State, the benefit of doubt should go to that person whose identity according to the State itself was doubtful. In the present case also, the State Police has investigated the matter and found that no such occurrence has taken place. When the complainant filed the complaint, there are also material contradictions in the testimony of the complainant and eye witness Gurdial Singh and ocular evidence does not support medical evidence. In such circumstances, when both the complainant and PW3 have admitted that there is a factionalism in the village, the present complaint can be the result of that factionalism as accused No.1 is Sarpanch of the village and as per opinion of the doctor, injuries on the person of the complainant can be self suffered or Aggarwal Anoop Kumar 2014.01.27 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High court Chandigarh CRA-S-1214-SBA-2000 (O&M) 10 can be self inflicted. So, in such circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and the accused is acquitted of the offence charged with by giving him benefit of doubt. File be completed and consigned to the judicial record room."
Though the learned Trial Court has not extended any benefit to the respondents on account of the delay in filing the complaint, but this Court finds that there was a delay of more than ten months in presenting the complaint before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar. The complainant has failed to assign any reason as to why the complaint was presented after such a huge delay. As discussed above, there were serious contradictions in the depositions of the star- witnesses and the same were going to the root of the case. Even the oral deposition was contrary to the medical evidence. During the course of investigation, the police found the allegations to be false and proposed to submit the cancellation report. According to the complainant, two persons had participated in the alleged occurrence, but one of the accused was discharged by the learned Summoning Court, which shows that there was sting of exaggeration. It shows that the complainant exaggerated the version and tried to implicate the appellant and his co-accused in the alleged occurrence. The version put up by the complainant cannot be wholly true. There is no gain saying that the Court has to separate the grain from chef, but when the allegations put up Aggarwal Anoop Kumar 2014.01.27 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High court Chandigarh CRA-S-1214-SBA-2000 (O&M) 11 by the complainant/prosecution are so absurd or improper, in that eventuality, the whole case of the complainant has to be discarded.
Even otherwise, the judgment of acquittal cannot be set aside merely on the ground that there is possibility of other view. If the appellate Court finds that the verdict delivered by the Trial Court is reasonable one, then the same should not be disturbed. This Court is of the firm view that the judgment delivered by the learned Trial Court is neither perverse nor against law and facts and, as such, no interference is called for by this Court. Resultantly, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
January 21, 2014 (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
Anoop JUDGE
Aggarwal Anoop Kumar
2014.01.27 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High court Chandigarh