Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Pinku @ Nikan vs State Of H.P. on 8 September, 2015
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice, Arun Mishra
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.101-102 OF 2008
PINKU @ NIKAN ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No.705 of 2000, dated 12.10.2007 and 15.11.2007. By the impugned judgments and orders, the High Court has reversed the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in relation to the appellant-herein and convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”).
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2015.09.14 17:59:30 IST Reason: 2
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 07.05.1994 at about 9:30 p.m. the three accused persons including the appellant offered a lift to one Dhani Ram (PW-4) in their truck. Thereafter, the accused persons pushed PW-4 out of the truck. In the mean time, the complainant reached the spot in a van and demanded to know why the accused persons did so. At that point, the accused persons hit the complainant with a rod and stone, causing a fracture of the temporal parietal bone. They also pelted stones at the complainant, PW-4 and the driver of the van (PW-2). The complainant reported the matter to the police the next day and a First Information Report was registered.
3. After the completion of the investigation chargesheet was filed against the accused persons. Thereafter, the accused persons appeared before the Trial Court and after both sides were heard, 3 charges were framed for the offences punishable under Sections 235 and 506 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons who pleaded not guilty. Accordingly, the case was committed to Trial.
4. In order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused persons, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and presented several documents including the medical examination report of the complainant. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). No evidence was led in defense of the accused persons.
5. Upon a close examination of the evidence on record, the Trial Court held that the prosecution evidence was full of inconsistencies and 4 contradictions and therefore, the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. There was delay in lodging of First Information Report by the complainant, and the contradictory explanations offered to justify the delay did not inspire confidence in the mind of the Trial Court. Further, no independent witness was involved by the police during investigation of the case or examined during Trial, despite the fact that P.W.4 categorically stated in his testimony that 10-12 persons of the village had gathered during the incident. Contradictory versions were presented by the prosecution regarding the weapon used to cause injury to the complainant, and no weapons were recovered by the police during investigation. Keeping these aspects of the matter in view, the Trial Court acquitted the accused persons of all offences.
5
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, the respondent- State preferred an appeal before the High Court. Upon a detailed consideration of the evidence on record including the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, the High Court held that the contradictions noticed by the Trial Court did not create doubts in the prosecution story with respect to the infliction of injuries on the complainant and PW-4, and the involvement of the appellant in the infliction of these injuries.
7. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court with respect to the appellant and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, along with payment of fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in 6 default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
8. However, the High Court held that the prosecution evidence with respect to the other two accused persons was full of inconsistencies and contradictions. Accordingly, the High Court confirmed the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in relation to the two accused persons other than the appellant.
9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the High Court, the appellant is before us in this appeal.
10. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties to the lis.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant would assail the judgment and order passed by the High Court and submit that the High Court has reversed a 7 well reasoned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution evidence is full of inconsistencies and contradictions with respect to whether the complainant was hit with a rod or with stones, and whether the appellant was the person who assaulted and injured the complainant. The learned counsel would support the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court and submit that the benefit of the doubt should be provided to the appellant in light of these serious inconsistencies.
12. Apart from arguing on merits of the case, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is a first time offender, and that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, should be extended to the appellant. 8
13. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State would support the order of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court.
14. After going through the judgments and orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the High Court and material on record, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the well reasoned judgment and order passed by the High Court which requires our interference. Further, we are of the considered opinion that in light of the serious nature of the offence involved, the instant case is not a fit case for the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to be extended to the appellant.
15. The appeal, being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
9
16. The appellant is directed to surrender in a month's time to serve out the remaining sentence.
Ordered accordingly.
............CJI.
(H.L. DATTU) ..............J. (ARUN MISHRA) NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 08, 2015.
10
ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 101-102/2008
PINKU @ NIKAN Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF H.P. Respondent(s)
Date : 08/09/2015 These appeals were called
on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
For Appellant(s) Mr. Naresh K. Sharma,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Suryanarayana Singh, Sr.AAG
Ms. Pragati Neekhra,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
As a sequel to the above, pending
interlocutory application, if any, stand
disposed of.
(Neetu Khajuria) (Vinod Kulvi)
Sr.P.A. Assistant Registrar
(Signed order is placed on the file)