Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P vs Jaggu Ram And Others on 13 May, 2019
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No. 311 of 2009
Decided on: May 10, 2019
_____________________________________________________________
.
State of H.P. .........Appellant
Versus
Jaggu Ram and others ...Respondents
_____________________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
_____________________________________________________________
For the appellant: Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Additional
Advocate General.
For the respondents: Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate.
_____________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (oral)
Instant appeal having been filed by the appellant- State (hereinafter, 'State') is directed against judgment of acquittal dated 29.11.2008, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Case No. 87/2 of 2007, whereby the respondents-accused (hereinafter, 'accused') came to be acquitted of the charges framed against them under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC.
2. Briefly stated the facts as emerge from the record are that on 4.7.2007, at about 5.30 pm, accused, in furtherance of their common intention, caused grievous injuries to the complainant Bhanu Partap (PW-1), at Trilokpur Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? . ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2019 21:58:03 :::HCHP 2 River by means of fist and kick blows. Allegedly the matter was reported to the Police Post Kala Amb. One Head Constable Hari Singh alongwith Constable Viveka Nand visited the .
Regional Hospital, Nahan and recorded the statement under Section 154 CrPC of the complainant, Bhanu Partap, on the basis of which, formal FIR, Ext. PW-7/A came to be registered against the accused at Police Station, Nahan.
3. After completion of investigation, Police presented Challan in the competent Court of law, who being satisfied that a prima facie case exists against the accused, charged them with offences punishable under Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, to which all the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution, with a view to prove its case against the accused, examined in all eight witnesses, whereas, accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 CrPC, denied the case of the prosecution in toto and claimed that they have been falsely implicated. However, the fact remains that they did not lead any evidence in their favour, despite opportunity having been afforded to them.
4. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, vide judgment dated 29.11.2008, acquitted all the accused of the charges framed against them. In the aforesaid background, State has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, praying ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2019 21:58:03 :::HCHP 3 therein for conviction of accused after setting aside impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and .
perused the evidence led on record, be it oral or documentary vis-à-vis judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below, this court is not at all convinced with the arguments advanced by Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, that the learned Court below has misappreciated the evidence and has failed to appreciate the dame in its right perspective, rather, this Court, on careful perusal of the evidence led on record by the prosecution has no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt and further there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses including the complainant, PW-1 Bhanu Partap, as such, learned Court below rightly did not place reliance upon the same, while determining the guilt, if any, of the accused.
6. PW-1 Bhanu Partap, while deposing before the learned Court below, claimed that on 4.7.2007, at about 5.30 pm, he had gone on his Tractor to bring sand from Trilokpur River, where Tractor of Rinku was also parked and 2-3 labourers were also standing there. As per this witness, accused Ramesh, Manager alias Major Singh, Sanju and Jaggu ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2019 21:58:03 :::HCHP 4 came on the spot of alleged occurrence and started giving beatings to Rinku by means of Danda blows and when complainant tried to rescue Rinku, he was also given beatings .
by the accused, as a consequence of which, he sustained injuries on his nose and ear. He also deposed that he was admitted in Nahan Hospital on 5.7.2007 and thereafter all the four accused kept on approaching him for compromise. He told them to get him treated but since they did not do so, his father informed the Police Post Kala Amb and he made statement under Section 154 CrPC Ext. PW-1/A in the hospital. As per this witness, he alongwith persons namely Vinod Kumar, Ravinder and Yudhvir remained associated with the Police during investigation. He deposed that on 9.8.2007, Police prepared the Site Plan on his Nishandehi. He further deposed that the accused have their own tractor and they also load sand from Trilokpur River and due to this, they are having animosity with him. He deposed that, on account of beatings given to him by the accused, membrane of his ear had been torn. In his cross-examination, he feigned ignorance with regard to ownership of the River in question, from where he and the accused allegedly load sand. He categorically admitted that they did not pay any royalty for loading sand and Bajri etc. from the river and land of accused is adjacent to the river. Most importantly, in his cross-examination, this witness ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2019 21:58:03 :::HCHP 5 admitted that, while coming from Trilokpur to Kala Amb, there are Poonam Nursing Home and Sneh Hospital and other Clinics. He also admitted that the Police Post, Kala Amb falls .
on the way from Trilokpur to Nahan. As per this witness, he had informed the Police Post, Kala Amb on 4.7.2007 at about 5.30 pm, whereafter, Head Constable Hari Singh had visited his house at Budlion on 5.7.2007 at 10 am and his statement was recorded by Head Constable Hari Singh on 5.7.2007 at about 3.30 pm. He stated that on 9.7.2007, he accompanied Head Constable Hari Singh and one Constable alongwith Vinod, Rinku and Billu. He also admitted that he is having business terms with other witnesses namely Vinod, Rinku and Billu and they frequently meet each other. He admitted in his examination-in-chief that his statement was recorded on 9.7.2007 at Trilokpur River and he alongwith others loads sand from the river without any permission. He also admitted that the Mining Officer had challaned him under the Mining Act.
7. PW-2 Ravinder Singh and PW-4 Vinod Kumar, in their statements recorded before the learned Court below, also gave almost similar narration of facts as has been taken note above in the statement of PW-1 Bhanu Partap. However, careful perusal of the cross-examination conducted upon these ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2019 21:58:03 :::HCHP 6 witnesses, if is read juxtaposing the statement of PW-1 Bhanu Partap, it completely demolishes the case of the prosecution.
8. PW-2 Ravinder Singh, while admitting that there is .
land of accused at the place of occurrence, clearly stated that the River, from where they load sand, is in the ownership of the State. He also admitted that they do not give any royalty to the Government for loading sand. He admitted that they commit theft of sand and Bajri from the river. He stated that the quarrel between complainant and accused continued for 4- 5 minutes and in this process, complainant did not sustain any injury and no beating, if any, was given to him. He stated that only heated arguments took place and only blood had oozed from the nose of Bhanu Partap. He also admitted that there are Dispensary and Nursing Homes at Kala Amb and Trilokpur. He also admitted that there is a Police Post at Kala Amb, which falls in the middle from Trilokpur to Nahan. He also admitted that accused did not pick up quarrel with him.
9. PW-4 Vinod Kumar, in his cross-examination denied that near the place of occurrence, there is land of accused. He admitted that he has been working with the complainant Bhanu Partap for the last one year and Mining Officer had challanned Tractor of complainant many a times. He admitted that except Bhanu Partap no one sustained injuries. As per this witness, Bhanu Partap was firstly taken to ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2019 21:58:03 :::HCHP 7 Nahan then to Chandigarh. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that the Police visited the spot after 10-15 days and prepared the Site Plan. While admitting that there are .
Hospital, Dispensaries and Nursing Homes at Kala Amb and Trilokpur, he also admitted that there is a Police Post at Kala Amb. He stated that the quarrel was reported on the same day at Police Post Kala Amb, however, the Police did not visit the spot on the date of occurrence, but his statement was recorded.
10.
r to PW-8 Head Constable Hari Chand, Investigating Officer of the case, deposed that on 9.7.2007, a person namely Jagdev Jaswal, informed the Police Post Kala Amb, from Regional Hospital Nahan on telephone that on 4.7.2007, a quarrel had taken place between his son and the accused at Trilokpur River, as a consequence of which, his son remained admitted at Regional Hospital, Nahan from 5.7.2007. He alongwith Constable Viveka Nand reached Regional Hospital, Nahan, where PW-1 Bhanu Partap got recorded his statement under Section 154 CrPC (Ext.PW-1/A) alleging therein that on 4.7.2007, at about 5.30 pm, he had gone to Trilokpur River for loading sand, where he was given beatings by the accused, when he tried to rescue Rinku from their clutches. This witness stated that he obtained MLC of the injured Bhanu Partap (Ext. PW-6/A), wherein Medical Officer opined that final ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2019 21:58:03 :::HCHP 8 report would be given on receipt of report from IGMC, Shimla. On 8.8.2007, Medical Officer in his final opinion termed injuries allegedly suffered by the complainant to be grievous in .
nature and, accordingly Rapat Rojnamcha Nos. 8, 11 and 16 Exts. PW-3/A to PW-3/C, respectively, were entered and sent to the Police Station, Nahan through Constable Bhupender Singh, on the basis of which a formal FIR, Ext. PW-7/A came to be registered. In his cross-examination, this witness denied Government r River.
that there is land of the accused near the River and it is He admitted that permission/royalty, on one can carry sand/Bajri from the without river. He admitted that the father of the complainant had sold Government building of Kandi Project to one Sher Singh. He also admitted that there is a Dispensary at Trilokpur and many Nursing Homes in Kala Amb. He feigned ignorance whether the accused had made complaint to the Mining Officer for not paying royalty and for loading sand from the River forcibly and whether the Mining Officer had challaned him. He deposed that on 4.7.2007, he did not receive any phone from the complainant rather, he stated that on 5.7.2007, he did not visit house of the complainant regarding case in question. While specifically denying the factum with regard to recording of statement of complainant on 5.7.2007, this witness deposed that on 9.7.2007, he, for the first time, met the complainant in ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2019 21:58:03 :::HCHP 9 Civil Hospital, Nahan, where he recorded his statement under S.154 CrPC. He also admitted that when he recorded statement of complainant, he was fully conscious.
.
11. Close scrutiny of the aforesaid statements made by material prosecution witnesses creates a serious doubt with regard to correctness of the story/version put forth by the complainant. There are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses with regard to the alleged beatings given to the complainant by the accused. PW-2 Ravinder Singh, in his cross-examination, specifically denied the factum with regard to the beatings, if any, given by the accused, rather, he stated that there were only heated arguments between accused and the complainant.
12. Leaving everything aside, all the material prosecution witnesses including complainant, admitted in their statements that there are Hospital, Dispensary and Nursing Homes at Kala Amb and Trilokpur, but there is no plausible explanation rendered on record by either of the witnesses as to why, at the first instance, the complainant, who allegedly suffered grievous injury on his ear, was not taken to a Dispensary or Nursing Home at Trilokpur or Kala Amb. Similarly, all these witnesses admitted the factum with regard to existence of Police Post at Kala Amb, but again there is no explanation that why the complainant or his associates ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2019 21:58:03 :::HCHP 10 failed to lodge any complaint at Police Post, Kala Amb, after the alleged incident.
13. In the case at hand, alleged incident took place on .
4.7.2007, whereas, complaint, if any, came to be lodged on 9.7.2007 and the reason cited by the complainant for delay in lodging FIR, is not worth lending any credence, because, as per complainant, accused kept on insisting for compromise but since they failed to provide him medical aid, complainant's Challan complainant, against r the wherein father lodged complaint, which ultimately led to filing of accused.
he stated
Aforesaid
that
statement
accused kept
of
on
pressurizing him for compromise, itself suggests that at the first instance, complainant tried to negotiate /bargain with the accused, but after five days of alleged incident, chose to file the complaint.
14. Apart from above, there are material contradictions in the statements of complainant, PW-1 with regard to lodging of complaint, because, as per statement of PW-1 Bhanu Partap, he, immediately after having suffered injuries, informed the Police, whereafter, Head Constable Hari Singh visited his house at Budlion on 5.7.2007 and recorded his statement, whereas, his aforesaid deposition has been completely denied/contradicted by PW-8, Hari Singh, who, in his cross-examination, stated that on 4.7.2007, he did not ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2019 21:58:03 :::HCHP 11 receive any phone from complainant. He also stated that on 5.7.2007, he did not visit the house of the complainant and did not record his statement. He, in his cross-examination, .
deposed that on 9.7.2007, he met the complainant in Civil Hospital, Nahan, for the first time, whereafter, he recorded his statement under S.154 CrPC.
15. Close scrutiny of statements of the material prosecution witnesses compels this court to conclude that no the statements r made reliance, if any, can be placed by the learned Court below on by prosecution witnesses, contradictory and inconsistent with each other, as such, being learned Court below rightly did not place reliance upon the same, while ascertaining guilt, if any, of the accused.
16. By now it is well settled that in a criminal trial evidence of eye-witness requires careful assessment and needs to be evaluated for its creditability. Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that since fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon well established principle that "no man is guilty until proved so", utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with the situation where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the Court. Most importantly, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses thereby satisfying the test of ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2019 21:58:03 :::HCHP 12 consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses. In nutshell, it can be said that evidence in criminal cases needs to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. In this regard, .
reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in C. Magesh and others versus State of Karnataka (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 645, wherein it has been held as under:-
"45. It may be mentioned herein that in criminal jurisprudence, evidence has to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. Needless to emphasis, consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of an r accused. In this regard it is to be noted that this Court in the case titled Surja Singh v. State of U.P. (2008)16 SCC 686:
2008(11) SCR 286 has held:-( SCC p.704, para 14) "14. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story;
consistency with the account of other witness is held to be creditworthy; ..the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation."
In a criminal trial, evidence of the eye witness requires a careful assessment and must be evaluated for its creditability. Since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the stated principle that " no man is guilty until proven so," hence utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with situation where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the Court. There must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistence in evidence amongst all the witnesses."
::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2019 21:58:03 :::HCHP 13
17. Though, the medical evidence led on record by the prosecution, suggests that the complainant suffered injury on his ear but there is no positive evidence adduced on record by .
the prosecution to connect accused with the alleged beatings, if any, given on the person of the complainant, as such, mere placing of MLC Ext. PW-6/A may not be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.
18. This Court also finds that all the witnesses witnesses rbecause associated by the Police in support of its case are interested PW-1 (complainant) has admitted that he is having business terms with other categorically witnesses namely Vinod, Rinku and Billu and they frequently meet each other. Apart from above, complainant-Bhanu Partap has admitted that he has prior animosity with the accused as such, version put forth by the complainant and prosecution witnesses is required to be scrutinized with utmost care and the same cannot be made basis for conviction especially when no cogent and convincing evidence has been led on record in support of the versions put forth by the complainant and other prosecution witnesses, most of whom are interested witnesses.
19. In view of above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with judgment passed by the learned trial Court, which is accordingly upheld. In result, appeal fails and is ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2019 21:58:03 :::HCHP 14 accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by accused are discharged. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
May 10, 2019
(vikrant)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2019 21:58:03 :::HCHP