Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhag Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 19 March, 2014
CRR No.3809 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR No.3809 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision : 19.03.2014
Bhag Singh and another ..........Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and another ...........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH
1. Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
Present:- None for the petitioners.
Mr.Anil Kumar, DAG Haryana.
*******
R.P.NAGRATH, J.
1. The instant revision has been filed against the acquittal of private respondents, in appeal, by the Sessions Judge, Karnal in FIR No.286 dated 22.11.2001 for the offence under Sections 323/325 read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station Butana, District, Karnal. The private respondents were convicted and awarded appropriate sentences by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 16.09.2010.
2. Facts of the case briefly stated are:-
On 13.11.2001 at about 7:00/7:30 a.m the complainant and his son Sube Singh had gone to the fields for sowing wheat crop. On reaching there, the complainant saw his brother Mangat Ram and nephew Subhash were sowing wheat in their fields. Subhash's brother-in-law was ploughing fields of Mangat Ram by a tractor. Complainant noticed that common water course and Anil Kumar 2014.03.25 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.3809 of 2012 (O&M) 2 common Dol of their fields had already been cut, as such complainant went to Mangat Ram to lodge protest. Mangat Ram started calling bad names to the complainant and they entered into a verbal duel. Mangat Ram picked up a lathi from nearby and inflicted blow on the left shoulder of the complainant.
Subhash's brother-in-law resident of Seedpur hit complainant on left knee with the front wheel of the tractor. As a result the complainant fell down. While Sube Singh was separating them that Mangat Ram and aforesaid boy belonging to Seedpur, inflicted injuries on the person of Sube Singh. It was stated by complainant that after sometime complainant's nephew namely Subhash also reached the spot. He snatched lathi from his brother-in-law and gave lathi blow to Sube Singh. Sube Singh also fell down. While both of them were lying on the ground the accused persons gave slap and fist blows to them. On hearing shouts 'Mar Dia' 'Mar Dia' Jaswant Singh son of Kartar Singh, from nearby fields reached the spot and saved the complainant from clutches of the assailants. The assailants made good their escape alongwith the weapons of offence.
3. None has represented the petitioners.
4. I have carefully perused the judgments of the Courts below and also the trial Court record and find no grounds to interfere in the findings reached by learned appellate Court, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.
5. Version in defence was that both the petitioners along with Suresh Kumar came armed with weapons on 13.11.2001 at 7:30 a.m, while private respondent No.1 was ploughing his fields. These persons entered the Dera and started beating respondent No.2. It was further the case of the private respondents that Bhag Singh gave lathi blow at the back of Mangat, Suresh also gave a lathi blow, Sube Singh gave a danda blow at the back of Mangat. Another lathi blow was given by Bhag Singh on the left shoulder of Anil Kumar 2014.03.25 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.3809 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Mangat who raised alarm by shouting 'Bachao-Bachao' where upon Subhash and Dharam Singh son of Ramji Lal reached the spot and saved Mangat from the clutches of Sube, Bhag Singh and Suresh. Regarding this occurrence Mangat Ram had filed a complaint under Sections 323, 452, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The private respondents also examined the defence witnesses.
6. Learned appellate Court observed as under:-
"As per prosecution case the occurrence had taken place at 7:00/7:30 a.m. Copies of the MLR of Bhag Singh and that of Sube Singh Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B, respectively, clearly show that they arrived in the hospital on 13.11.2001 at 11:00 p.m. From 7:00/7:30 a.m. till 11:00 p.m where the complainant and his son Sube Singh remained, remains unexplained throughout. As per complaint Ex.PW3/A from the spot Sube Singh son of Complainant Bhag Singh had gone to village Dehreru for bringing Ishwar Singh, brother-in-law of the complainant. As per this complaint, Ishwar Singh had taken him to Civil Hospital, Karnal. Bhag Singh complainant deposed that his brother-in-law had brought him to hospital at 3:00/3:30 p.m. whereas this statement of Bhag Singh is not in conformity with the medical evidence. As per M.L.R. Ex.PW7/A, Bhag Singh was brought to hospital at 11:00 p.m on 13.11.2001. Thus, the statement of Bhag Singh that his brother in law had brought him to hospital at 3:00/3:30 p.m is not sustainable.
Besides above, Bhag Singh deposed that after he was hit by the tractor, he became unconscious. He regained consciousness the next day in the hospital. He again deposed that he regained consciousness in Karnal Hospital. When he was admitted in the Hospital, he was not conscious. The evidence of the doctor on this point is again different. Dr.R.K.Mittal as PW7 deposed that when patient was brought with the alleged history of assault, he was conscious and well oriented. Even on the MLR copy of which is Ex.PW7/A, it Anil Kumar finds mention that the patient was conscious. Thus, the story 2014.03.25 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.3809 of 2012 (O&M) 4 propounded by complainant Bhag Singh that he become unconscious after he was struck against the tractor and later on regained consciousness in the hospital on the next day, is not sustainable. The story appears to be nothing but to cover up the delay in lodging in the FIR. It is the specific case of the defence that from 8:00 a.m to 11:00 p.m when the complainant and his son had gone to Civil Hospital, Karnal there was enough time for the complainant party to manipulate the injuries on their person so as to implicate falsely accused in this case with whom complainant party was already inimical."
7. Apart from the above, certain other contradictions were also observed and thereby holding that version set up by the complainant party cannot be beyond suspicion. I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed as such.
19.03.2014 (R.P.NAGRATH)
anil JUDGE
Anil Kumar
2014.03.25 11:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document