Punjab-Haryana High Court
Veena Devi And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 28 January, 2014
Author: Rajive Bhalla
Bench: Rajive Bhalla, Jaspal Singh
CRA-D-883-DB-2013 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-883-DB-2013
Decided on 28.01.2014
Veena Devi and another ..... Appellants
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH
Present: Mr.Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the appellants.
*******
RAJIVE BHALLA, J.
The appellants challenge correctness of judgment dated 04.05.2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa acquitting respondents No.2 to 7.
The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 14.11.2007, a telephone message was received at police Post Jeewan Nagar, Sirsa from Police Station City Sirsa that Veena Devi and Tulsi Devi are admitted in General Hospital, Sirsa. After receipt of the message, HC Poonam Chand reached General Hospital, Sirsa and sought opinion of the doctor whether Veena Devi and Tulsi Devi are fit to make a statement. The doctor opined that they are unfit to make a statement. On 15.11.2007, the opinion of the doctor was once again sought whereafter statement of Veena Devi wife of Dharam Raj, resident of village Dhudianwali, was recorded. Veena Devi CRA-D-883-DB-2013 [2] stated that they had set up a Dhani in their fields. On 14.11.2007, she was picking cotton from her field alongwith Surta Devi wife of Prithvi Raj, Tulsi Devi, her mother-in-law was busy with her household chores in the Dhani and her father-in-law Megh Raj who is unable to move, was sitting in the Dhani alongwith Prithvi Singh. At about 11/11:30 AM some people arrived by a tractor, started uprooting the standing cotton crop and began cultivating the land. Tulsi Devi and Surja Devi approached the tractor and noticed that Sohan Lal, Chanan Ram, Murari, Devki Nandan, Gopi Ram, Panna Lal, Om Parkash and Charan Singh were involved in uprooting cotton crop. Her mother-in-law asked the aforesaid persons to stop and all of them stood in front of the tractor. Murari came running, gave her a push and she fell down. Murari thereafter gave her slaps, fist blows and tore her shirt. Sohan Lal alighted from the tractor, gave her slaps followed by a fist blow on her mouth breaking one of her teeth. In this scuffle, one golden 'Tabiz' belonging to her broke and fell on the ground. Surja Devi intervened in the matter but to no avail. Prithvi Singh, who was sitting in the Dhani, came to the spot and rescued them. Later on Mohar Singh son of Prem Raj also came at the spot and abused the appellants. The accused, thereafter, took away the cotton crop by loading it into their tractors. A vehicle was arranged to remove her and her mother-in-law to Government Hospital, Sirsa. The CRA-D-883-DB-2013 [3] aforesaid statement led to registration of an FIR under Sections 323, 148, 149, 447, 379 and 506 of the IPC. The police arrested Sohan Lal, Murari, Devki Nandan on 16.11.2007 and Chanan Ram and Gurcharan Singh on 22.11.2007. Upon completion of investigation, a final report was presented and the respondents were charged for offences punishable under Sections 148, 447, 323 and 392 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
During the trial and pursuant to an application filed by the Public Prosecutor, a charge under Section 395 of the IPC was added and as this offence is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Constable Ranbir Singh as PW-1, Dr. Viresh Bhushan as PW-2, Subhash Chander, ASI as PW-3, Ram Pal Singh, SI (Retd.) as PW- 4, Punam Chand, ASI as PW-5, Veena Devi as PW-6 and Tusli Devi as PW-7. Statements of accused were recorded under Sections 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied their involvement and pleaded innocence. The accused stated that they have been falsely implicated as they purchased land measuring 1 kanal and 15 marlas from one Jagga son of Mulha Ram for a passage to their main land holding. They have been using this land as a passage. The complainant party wanted to purchase the land and therefore, implicated them falsely so as to pressurise them to sell this land. It CRA-D-883-DB-2013 [4] was also stated that the complainants' party has purchased land from Jagga Ram, after the land was purchased by the respondents. The respondents also stated that Chanan Ram has filed a criminal complaint against Megh Raj, Atma Ram, Anil, Dharam Raj, Tusli Devi and Veena Devi stating that the land measuring 1 kanal and 15 marlas was purchased by them for a path vide sale deed dated 09.02.2007 from Jagga son of Mulha Ram. The other party purchased land from brothers of Jagga Ram. The parties have become co-sharers. The other party wanted to purchase the land from Jagga Ram. On 14.11.2007, at about 11:00 AM, Gopi Ram son of Atma Ram, aged 73 years was going to his fields on this path. Megh Raj parked his tractor in the path. The other party who had concealed themselves in the cotton crop, came out. Megh Raj caught hold of Gopi Ram. Atma Ram gave a fist blow on the mouth of Gopi Ram. Raj Kumar gave a danda blow to Gopi Ram on his left eye. Anil gave a danda blow below his knee. The remaining persons gave fist blows, slaps and hurled abuses. Gopi Ram-injured was medico legally examined, but as the police did not take any action, a private complaint was filed.
On account of pendency of a trial relating to the same incident, the Sub-Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ellanabad, ordered that the cross-case be placed before the Sessions Judge, for appropriate orders. The cross-case was, therefore, tagged CRA-D-883-DB-2013 [5] alongwith the case registered pursuant to FIR and both cases were tried together.
The trial Court after appraising the evidence on record and considering the arguments, acquitted both the sides by granting benefit of doubt on the basis of a finding that it could not be ascertained as to which party had started the fight, and the land being joint property neither party could claim exclusive possession or ownership of land or crop, thereby negating the allegations of criminal trespass and theft etc. Counsel for the appellants submits that as admittedly the respondents had purchased the land for a path, they had no right to trespass on the land purchased by the appellants, uproot cotton crop and inflict injuries upon the appellants' side. The mere fact that the land may be owned jointly, does not give a right to commit theft and assault the appellants. It is further contended that the ocular version, disclosed by prosecution witnesses read alongwith the medico legal report and deposition of the doctor, leaves no ambiguity as to the offences but the trial Court has by drawing conclusions that are perverse and arbitrary, acquitted the respondents by wrongly holding that it is not clear as to who initiated the fight and as to who was the aggressor. The depositions of prosecution witnesses leave no ambiguity that the respondents were the aggressor party. The injuries suffered by the CRA-D-883-DB-2013 [6] appellants having been duly proved, the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court may be set aside.
We have heard counsel for the appellants, perused the impugned judgment and express our inability to hold that while acquitting the respondents the trial Court has committed any error of jurisdiction, misread the evidence on record, has recorded conclusions that are perverse or arbitrary or that in the facts and circumstances of the case any conclusion other than the one recorded by the trial Court was possible.
The appellants and the respondents admittedly, are co- sharers. An application filed for partition of the land was pending adjudication. The respondents had purchased 1 kanal and 15 marlas from Jagga Ram son of Mulha Ram whereas the respondents purchased another parcel of adjoining land from the co-sharers of Jagga Ram. The appellants and the respondents being co-sharers, were joint owners in possession. A joint owner in possession, cannot assert exclusive rights except where he is in settled position then also with the consent or acquiescence of other co-sharer, duly reflected in the revenue record by assigning a separate khatauni to such a co-sharer, under a joint khewat. Neither of the parties allege that there was any partition or any separate khatauni(s) was assigned to either party. The dispute appears to be with respect to 1 kanal and 15 marals of land CRA-D-883-DB-2013 [7] purchased by the respondents for a passage and both sides allege that the other side initiated the attack and inflicted injuries. Both sides have ocular and medical evidence in support of their respective pleas but the evidence on record duly considered and referred to in detail in the trial Court judgment, leaves no manner of doubt that the findings recorded by the trial Court that it is not possible to record with any degree of certainty as to who initiated the attack and who is the aggressor/trespasser, is correct. In these circumstances, the trial Court has rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents and while considering the complaint against the appellants.
In view of what has been recorded hereinabove and in the absence of any circumstance that would enable us to interfere with the impugned judgment, the appeal is dismissed.
[ RAJIVE BHALLA ]
JUDGE
28.01.2014 [ JASPAL SINGH ]
shamsher JUDGE
Singh Shemsher
2014.03.05 12:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh