Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ranjeet Singh Alias Pappi vs State Of H.P on 16 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8552 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 67 of 2013 .
Reserved on: 14.08.2024 Date of Decision: 16.09.2024 Ranjeet Singh alias Pappi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. Coram r to ...Respondent Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioner : Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with M/s Vinod Kumar Gupta and Kishitiz, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 22.02.2013, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 46-K/X of 2008 by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment dated 25.08.2008 and order of sentence dated 26.08.2008 passed by learned Judicial 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2024 20:31:03 :::CIS 2Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8552 ) Magistrate First Class- II Kangra (learned trial Court) were affirmed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same .
manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the informant/victim- Ms Leela Devi (PW1) was present in her home on 03.04.2022 at about 10:00 PM. The accused came outside her home and started abusing her. She asked the accused not to abuse her. The accused gave her a fist blow due to which her tooth was broken. She shouted for help. Kanta Devi (PW2), Surinder Kumar and Mehar Chand (PW4) came to the spot and rescued the informant/victim from the accused. The matter was reported to the police and an entry (Ex-PW5/A) was recorded in the police station. An application was filed for conducting the medical examination of the victim/informant. Dr S. B. Sood (PW3) conducted the medical examination of the victim and found that she had suffered a grievous injury within 24 hours of examination which could have been caused by means of a blunt-
::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2024 20:31:03 :::CIS 3Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8552 ) edged weapon. The police registered the FIR (Ex-PX), after the receipt of the medical opinion. ASI Kaur Chand (PW9) conducted .
the investigation. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex-PW9/A). He seized the broken tooth and deposited it with MHC Karan Paul (PW8), who deposited it in the malkhana. The statements of the remaining witnesses were recorded as per their version and after the completion of the investigation, a challan was prepared and presented before the Court.
3. The accused was charged with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses to prove its case. Leela Devi (PW1) is the informant/victim. Kanta Devi (PW2) and Mehar Chand (PW4) are the eyewitnesses. Dr S.B. Sood (PW3) conducted the medical examination of the informant/victim. HC Rakesh Kumar (PW5) proved the entry in the daily diary. Piar Chand (PW6) took the x-ray of the informant/victim. Constable Sunil Kumar (PW7) accompanied the victim for her medical examination. HC Karan Paul (PW8) was working as MHC with ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2024 20:31:03 :::CIS 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8552 ) whom the case property was deposited. ASI Kaur Chand (PW9) conducted the investigation.
.
5. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC denied the prosecution case in its entirety. He stated that the witnesses deposed falsely against him. He was innocent and was falsely implicated. He stated that he wanted to lead the defence evidence but led no evidence.
6. The learned Trial Court held that the testimony of the victim was duly corroborated by the medical evidence. The mere pendency of the civil dispute was not sufficient to discard the prosecution case because enmity is a double-edged weapon. The defence version that the informant/victim had sustained an injury by way of a fall was not believable, because the victim did not sustain any other injury. Hence, the accused was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of ₹ 1,000/- and in default of payment of the fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2024 20:31:03 :::CIS 5Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8552 )
7. Being aggrieved from the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal which was .
decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra (learned Appellate Court). The learned Appellate Court concurred with findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, that the testimony of the victim was credible and was duly corroborated by the medical evidence. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.
8. Being aggrieved from the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below, the accused has filed the present revision asserting that the learned Courts below erred in appreciating the evidence. The version of the informant/victim was not corroborated by her husband Mehar Chand (PW4) and her sister-in-law Kanta Devi (PW2). The Dental Surgeon was not examined, in the absence of whom the nature of the injury was not proved to be grievous. The accused was residing 10 KM away from the house of the victim and he had no justification to be present outside the informant's home at 10 pm. There was a delay in reporting the matter to the police. The benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act should have been granted to the accused and the learned Trial Court erred in denying such benefits. Therefore, it was prayed that the present revision be ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2024 20:31:03 :::CIS 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8552 ) allowed and the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below be set aside.
.
9. I have heard Mr. N.S. Chandel learned Senior Counsel assisted by M/s Vinod Kumar Gupta and Kishitiz, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
10. Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the testimony of the informant/victim was not corroborated by her husband Mehar Chand (PW4) and Kanta Devi (PW2). There was a delay in reporting the matter to the police. The Dental Surgeon who had examined the informant/victim was not examined in the Court. There was no evidence that the injury was grievous and could have been caused in a manner suggested by the prosecution. Therefore, he prayed that the present revision be allowed and the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below be set aside.
11. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State supported the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below and submitted that no ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2024 20:31:03 :::CIS 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8552 ) interference is required with them. He prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
.
12. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
13. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204:
(2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 348: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 786 that the revisional court is not an appellate jurisdiction and it can only rectify the Patent defect, errors of jurisdiction or the law. It was observed on page 207:
"10. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at the outset, it is apt to mention that there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two courts after a detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record. The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction like to the appellate court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short "CrPC") vests jurisdiction to satisfy itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual cases. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings.::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2024 20:31:03 :::CIS 8
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8552 )
14. This position was reiterated in State of Gujarat v.
Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294 wherein it was .
observed:
"13. The power and jurisdiction of the Higher Court under Section 397 Cr. P.C. which vests the court with the power to call for and examine records of an inferior court is for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularities of any proceeding or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept into such proceedings. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of this court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra, (2012) 9 SCC 460 where the scope of Section 397 has been considered and succinctly explained as under:
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law.
There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with the law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2024 20:31:03 :::CIS 9
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8552 )
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of .
the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex-facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much- advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC."
15. A similar view was taken in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460: (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687: (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986: 2012 SCC OnLine SC 724 wherein it was observed:
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with the law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2024 20:31:03 :::CIS 10
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8552 )
16. The present revision has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
.
17. The matter was reported to the police and an entry (Ex-PW5/A) was recorded at 01:00 am; thus, the matter was reported to the police within three hours of the incident and it cannot be said that there was undue delay in reporting the matter to the police. Hence, the submission that there was a delay in reporting the matter to the police and the prosecution case has to be rejected due to the delay cannot be accepted.
18. Informant/victim Leela Devi (PW1) stated that about two years before the date of deposition at about 10:00 PM in April, the accused was abusing her. She asked him not to abuse her. The accused inflicted a blow on her face due to which her tooth was broken and she became unconscious. She reported the matter to the police. She stated in her cross-examination that the accused is her nephew and he is residing at Madhal. It was dark at the time of the incident. Kanta Devi (PW2) is her sister-in-law who resides with her. Up-Pradhan- Pratap Chand also came to the spot, they went to the police station on 03 April, at 12-1 AM.
She denied that she had fallen from the retaining wall.
::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2024 20:31:03 :::CIS 11Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8552 )
19. Kanta Devi (PW2) stated that she heard some noise and came out but the incident was over. She was permitted to be .
cross-examined. She denied that the accused had inflicted a fist blow to the informant in her presence. She denied the previous statement recorded by the police. She had seen the broken tooth of the informant/victim. She stated in her cross-examination by the learned counsel for the defence that the victim was her sister-in-law. The accused was residing at Chakban Saleta at a distance of 4-5 KM from Madhal.
20. Mehar Singh (PW4), the husband of the victim stated that two years before the date of deposition, he was sleeping. He heard some noise and saw that the accused had beaten the informant/victim. The tooth of the informant/victim was damaged. He intervened. He stated in his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the defence that he did not know how the tooth was broken. The tooth was not broken in his presence.
21. This is the entire evidence led by the prosecution. It is apparent from the evidence that Kanta Devi (PW2) and Mehar Chand (PW4) have not supported the prosecution case that the accused had inflicted a blow on the face of the informant/victim ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2024 20:31:03 :::CIS 12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8552 ) in their presence due to which her tooth was broken. Kanta Devi (PW2) stated that the incident was over at the time of her arrival .
on the spot and she could not know with whom the quarrel had taken place. Thus, she has not supported the prosecution's version that the accused had inflicted injury to the informant/victim in her presence. Mehar Chand (PW4), the husband of the victim also did not say that the tooth was broken in his presence. He stated in his cross-examination that he could not know how the tooth was broken. Mehar Chand (PW4) further stated that he saw the accused beating the informant/victim and he had intervened in the matter. This fact was not stated by Leela Devi (PW1) who stated that she became unconscious and could not know who had rescued her. Therefore, his version regarding the intervention in the scuffle is not corroborated by the victim.
Mehar Chand nowhere stated that the informant/victim became unconscious and he has not corroborated her to this extent.
22. Dr. S.B. Sood (PW3) referred the patient to a Dental Surgeon and as per the opinion of the Dental Surgeon, the Right Upper Central Incisors were broken. Hence, the injury was grievous and the weapon of offence was blunt. He identified the signatures of the Dental Surgeon.
::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2024 20:31:03 :::CIS 13Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8552 )
23. It is apparent from his statement that he has given his opinion based on the report issued by the Dental Surgeon. The .
prosecution has not examined the Dental Surgeon who was the best witness to prove the nature of the injury and the manner of its infliction. Dr S.B. Sood has also not stated that the injury could have been caused by a fist blow and only stated that the injury could have been caused by a blunt weapon. Hence, his testimony does not support the informant/victim's version that the injury could have been caused by a fist blow.
24. The learned Trial Court was swayed by the fact that the testimony of the informant/victim was corroborated by the medical evidence. However, it was not considered that the statement of the Dental Surgeon was not recorded and the Medical Officer had also not stated that the injury could have been caused by a fist blow. Learned Trial Court also failed to consider the fact that Kanta Devi (PW2) did not support the prosecution case and Mehar Chand (PW4) did not support the prosecution case regarding the fact that the injury was caused in his presence.
::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2024 20:31:03 :::CIS 14Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8552 )
25. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Digamber Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 4 SCC 522 :
.
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 300: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 316 that the prosecution cannot discharge the burden to prove its case by strong suspicion and it has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It was observed at page 527:
"14. One of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence is undeniably that the burden of proof squarely rests on the prosecution and that the general burden never shifts. There can be no conviction on the basis of surmises and conjectures or suspicion howsoever grave it may be. Strong suspicion, strong coincidences and grave doubt cannot take the place of legal proof. The onus of the prosecution cannot be discharged by referring to very strong suspicion and the existence of highly suspicious factors to inculpate the accused nor falsity of defence could take the place of proof which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed, though a false plea by the defence at best, be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances unfailingly point to the guilt.
17. In Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala [Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 745: 1993 SCC (Cri) 1117], this Court has held that suspicion is not the substitute for proof. There is a long distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and the prosecution has to travel all the way to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
18. In Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam [Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406: (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 677], this Court, while examining the distinction between "proof beyond reasonable doubt" and "suspicion" has held as under: (SCC p. 412, para 13) ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2024 20:31:03 :::CIS 15 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8552 ) "13. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that "maybe" proved and .
something that "will be proved". In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between "maybe" and "must be" is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicions do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between "maybe" true and "must be" true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between "may be" true and "must be" true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense."
26. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to cover the distance between suspicion and proof beyond reasonable doubt and learned Courts below erred in holding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2024 20:31:03 :::CIS 16Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8552 )
27. In view of the above, the present revision is allowed and the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below .
are ordered to be set aside. The accused is acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC.
The fine be refunded to the accused after the expiry of the period of limitation in case no appeal is preferred and in case of appeal, if any, as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The accused is directed to furnish the personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court within four weeks undertaking to appear in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of filing of an appeal by the respondent/State.
24. The record of the learned Trial Court be returned forthwith.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 16th September, 2024 (Shamsh Tabrez) ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2024 20:31:03 :::CIS