Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nathu Ram And Ors. vs State Of Haryana on 25 January, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995CRILJ2817
JUDGMENT Sat Pal, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 30th August, 1986, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, in the Sessions Case No. 8 of 1986.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution was that the appellants alongwith two others, namely Patasi, wife of Prem, and Kamla wife of Nathu, criminally assaulted Head Constable Bal Krishan and Constable Rishi Parkash, two members of Railway Police posted at Railway Station, Dabwali on 19th January, 1986. In support of its case, the Prosecution examined the injured Police Officals, namely, Head Constable Bal Krishan and constable Rishi Prakash, Besides these two officials, the prosecution also examined Dr. Vasudeva Bansal (PW 1). Investigating Officer ASI Jit Kumar (PW6) and some formal witnesses.
3. Relying on the aforesaid evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted accused Nathu ram for commission of offence 333/332, read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, Accused Vijay Kumar and Prem under Sections 332/333, read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, Accused Nathu Ram was sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-. in default of which, he P-2 was directed to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. Accused Prem was sentenced to 1/2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/ -. in default of which he was to undergo 2 months' rigorous imprisonment, Accused Vijay Kumar was, however, given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Sections 360/361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The other two accused, namely, Patasi and Kamla, were, however, acquitted. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellants have filed the present appeal.
4. Mr. Bali, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, drew my attention to the statement of PW 4, head Constable Bal Krishan, PW 5 Constable Rishi Parkash and PW 6 ASI Jit Kumar, Investigating Officer and submitted that there was material discrepancy in the statements of the aforesaid witnesses and keeping in view those discrepancies, the appellants could not be convicted under Sections 332/333 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. He submitted that PW 4, in his examination-in-chief, had stated that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer in the Hospital, but in the cross-examination he has stated that his-statement was recorded by ASI Jit Kumar in the waiting hall immediately after the incident and he has also admitted that in the waiting hall, there were about 100/150 persons. He further submitted that Constable Rishi Parkash, in his cross-examination, has stated that in the waiting hall, ASI Jit Kumar did not inquire about this incident from him or from Head Constable Bal Krishan and the said Investigating Officer had arrived in the Hospital at about 10/11 P. M. and only then he examined Head Constable Bal Krishan regarding this incident. He also stated in his cross-examination that after arriving at the Hospital, Head Constable P-3 Bal Krishan had become unconscious. ASI Jit Kumar (PW 6), in his examination-in-chief, stated that he recorded the statement, Exhibits DA and DB of Head Constable Bal Krishan and Constable Rishi Parkash in the Hospital, after both these witnesses were declared fit to make a statement by the doctor, the learned counsel, therefore, contended that the conviction on the basis of these statements was not sustainable.
5. Mr. Goripuria, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, stated that the discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants are of minor nature. He further submitted that admittedly Head Constable, Bal Krishan and Constable Rishi Parkash, had suffered the injuries and keeping in view the statements of PW 1, PW 4, PW 5 and PW 6, the conviction of the appellants was in accordance with law.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records of the case. Though, the case of the prosecution was that the accused used to go on the platform of the Railway Station, Dabwali in drunken condition, but Head Constable Bal Krishan in his Cross-examination, admitted that at the relevant time, they were not under the influence of liquor. It is also admitted by the said witness that the people living on the other side of the Railway Station used to cross the platform and waiting hall along with the railway line, for going to the other side of the Railway Station as there is no over-bridge at that place. It is also admitted by the said witnesses that 100/150 people were pressent in the waiting-hall at the time of occurrence. This witness has also stated in his cross-examination that he became unconscious after arriving in the hospital, and the next morning, he regained consciousness. PW 5 has also stated that PW 4, had become unconscious after arriving in the hospital. In view of the statement of these two witnesses, no statement of the witness No. 4 could have been recorded in the Hospital at 10/11 P. M. when the Investigating Officer is alleged to have arrived in the Hospital. PW 4, in his examination-in-chief, has stated that his statement was recorded in the Hospital but in his cross-examination, contrary to this fact, stated that his statement was recorded in the waiting hall and admittedly, there were 100/150 persons present in the waiting hall. That statement appears to have been withheld by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. This discrepancy becomes material and relevant in the present case, particularly when the two independent public witnesses, Hanuman and Dundha Singh, who here associated with the case, have not been examined. In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that the conviction of the appellants is not sustainable and the appellants were entitled to be given the benefit of doubt in the present case.
7. For the reasons recorded herein above, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 332/333, read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, is set aside. The bail bonds submitted by the appellants stand cancelled. The amount of fine, if already, paid, be refunded to them.