Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramti Devi vs Dalip Kumar And Others on 29 April, 2009
Author: K. C. Puri
Bench: K. C. Puri
Criminal Misc. No. 685-MA of 2008.
-1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Criminal Misc.No.685-MA of 2008.
Date of decision:29.4.2009.
Ramti Devi.
...Appellant/applicant.
Versus
Dalip Kumar and others.
...Respondents.
...
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri.
...
Present: Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate for the appellant.
...
K. C. Puri, J.
Judgment.
Through the instant application, the appellant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 22.7.2008 delivered by Shri S.S.Mann, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka whereby the accused were acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt.
Criminal Misc. No. 685-MA of 2008.
-2-The case of the complainant as is evident from the judgment of the trial Court is that Dalip Kumar was a big landlord who owned jeep, motor cycle and tractor etc. Devi Lal accused was working with him as a Driver whereas Ramu accused was working as a cook with him.
On 30.8.1995, at about 2-00 PM, Anil Kumar, son of the complainant was playing with a tyre near her house. Dalip Kumar along with his son Mohit passed near their house in a jeep and the tyre with which her son was playing, struck against the jeep. Thereafter, Mohit accused started beating her son and on hearing the cries of her son, the complainant along with her husband Surjit Kumar stopped Mohit from doing so. On this, Dalip Kumar and Mohit became enraged and attacked husband of the complainant Surjit Kumar and caused him fist blows etc. They also abused the complainant. The complainant in retaliation abused the aforesaid persons and thereafter both the accused left in their jeep.
The complainant has further alleged that subsequently, after about 5 to 10 minutes, Mohit accompanied by their driver Devi Lal, Ramu and Naginder Kumar @ Bittu came there in a jeep and stopped it in front of her house. They were armed with sticks. Her husband was present in the house and was changing his Criminal Misc. No. 685-MA of 2008.
-3-clothes torn in the altercation. She, on seeing the accused, went inside her house and tried to lock the door but Bittu accused pushed the door and all the accused illegally entered their house. Bittu accused caught hold of her by her hand and pulled her, due to which bangles worn by her were broken. Accused Mohit, Devi Lal and Ranbir with bad intention tore her clothes and dragged her out towards the jeep. They also pulled her hair. Surjit Kumar, her husband tried to get her released but the accused attacked him and when they raised an alarm, Rai Singh son of Hazari Ram and Sohan son of Basti Ram reached there. They got them released from the assailants. The accused, while leaving, threatened them that they would be taught a lesson later on and would not be left alive. The accused wanted to kidnap her and wanted to indulge in some other illegal activities. Information regarding the occurrence was given to the respectables and the panchayat of the village. Efforts were made for initiating action against the accused but as Dalip Kumar was a big landlord, so no action was taken against the accused. On 22.9.1995, information was given to Police Station Khul Khera where they were assured that action would be taken against the accused but no action was taken under the influence of Dalip Kumar.
Criminal Misc. No. 685-MA of 2008.
-4-Motive, behind the occurrence, was that the accused were rich persons and they nursed a grudge on account of complainant and her husband stopping them from beating up their son.
Vide order dated 8.1.1997, the accused were ordered to be summoned and, thereafter, on conclusion of pre-charge evidence, charge under Sections 342, 452, 504, 506, 34 IPC was framed against the accused except Ranbir Kumar @ Ramu who was declared a Proclaimed Offender.
In order to prove her case, the complainant examined Surjit Kumar, Rai Singh and HC Puran Singh.
On closure of evidence of the complainant, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein all the incriminating evidence appearing against them was put. They denied the allegations of the complainant.
The accused examined three witnesses in their defence. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accused have been acquitted merely on the ground of delay in giving information to the police and filing the complaint. It is contended that delay in filing the complaint was explained by the documents produced by the accused themselves in the trial Court.
Criminal Misc. No. 685-MA of 2008.
-5-DDR was recorded on 5.9.1995 whereas the occurrence relates to 30.8.1995. The other ground for acquitting the accused is that besides the complainant and her husband, no other corroboration was there. It is submitted that the testimony of the complainant and her husband on oath cannot be discarded lightly. The complainant was molested by the accused and as such the accused should be punished for their illegal act. Minor discrepancies are bound to occur due to passage of time and the accused cannot be acquitted merely on the ground of minor discrepancies.
I have considered the said submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record of the case.
According to the case of the complainant, the dispute has arisen due to quarrel over children. No medical report regarding the alleged occurrence has been produced on the file. Independent witnesses were stated to be present but they have not supported the case of the complainant. The police has investigated the case and found the version of the complainant a mere concoction. The learned trial Court has held that there was no independent corroboration. There was delay in giving information to the police and filing the complaint. The trial Court also held Criminal Misc. No. 685-MA of 2008.
-6-that there were discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. As such, the trial Court has held that no case for conviction of the accused is made out. According to the complainant, Bittu accused caught hold of her hand due to which her bangles were broken but no medical report regarding the injuries has been produced on the file. Although the police investigation is not a gospel truth but the fact remains that the trial Court has rightly held that the complainant has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
In view of above discussion, the application for leave to appeal stands declined. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.
April 29,2009. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge