Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Attar Singh Son Of Jamna Ram And Mukhtiar ... on 6 January, 2003
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar, S.S. Saron
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. An F.I.R. No. 48 was registered on 5th March, 1988 at 11.30 A.M. under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was recorded on the basis of statement of one Shri Baljit Singh, who stated as under:-
"I am resident of Village Surehti and doing 10th class as a private student. Yesterday i.e., on 4.3.1988, I along with my father was going with a bicycle and I was following my father at a distance of about 15-20 yards. At about 1.30 P.M., when my father was about to cross his Gitwar, then Attar s/o Jamna Jat and Saranjit s/o Mukhtiar Jat came from the opposite directions. All of a sudden. Attar Singh gave a fist blow on the mouth of my father who fell down with is bicycle. On raising a hue and cry, I ran towards them and Saranjit caught hold of me in his arms when I reached there. At this, Sh. Ram Kishan s/o Sarup Lal Jat advised not to fight but in the meantime, Mukhtiar son of Dulia Jat reached there and exhorted by saying "leave aside the old man and set the body right". On hearing this, Attar Singh who was holding a kassi , gave a blow of it, a little above my left ankle. On receiving the kassi blow, I fell down and there was a deep cut on my fee. On an alarm raised by us, all the said three persons together with the Kassi fled away and entered the house of Sh. Rattan Thereafter, Sh. Ram Kishan and my father brought me home and afterward, got me admitted in the hospital at Jhajjar. Earlier, on 2.9.1985, Attar etc. had a fight with us, in which my brother Sarup and father sustained injuries. A case was registered. In the year 1987, the villagers got effected the compromise between both the parties in the Sessions Court, Rohtak. But Attar etc. harboured grudge despite the compromise and deliberately caused injuries in order to suffer my studies. I was intervening into the matter to avert any untowards incident and due to festival. Sh. Ram Kishan has helped me after coming out of his house and has seen the occurrence. I have heard the statement and the same is correct."
2. After investigation, a challan was filed in the court of competent jurisdiction and the accused Attar Singh and Mukhtiar Singh were sent to face trial under Sections 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide order dated 9.3.1989, learned trial court had summoned Saranjit under Section 319 Cr.P.C. However, subsequently, it was informed to the learned trial court that Saranjit belongs to armed forces and was being subjected to trial by the Court Martial for the offences, as such, vide order dated 7.12.1989, the prosecution progress only against the accused Attar Singh and Mukhtiar Singh. The prosecution has examined Baljit Singh PW.1, Dr. A.K. Bhutani PW2, Dr. S.K. Gosian PW3, Dharam Pal PW.4, Balle Ram PW5, Ram Kishan PW6, Rajinder Singh PW7 and I.O. Ram Kumar PW8. to prove its case. The statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the court and they also examined two witnesses. However, DW was declared hostile during his examination. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jhajjar, vide his judgment dated 17.9.1992 acquittal all the accused.
3. The State preferred an appeal against the acquittal of both the accused. However, vide order dated 6th April, 1993, the Division Bench while admitting the appeal granted leave to appeal only against Attar Singh and dismissed the appeal qua Mukhtiar Singh.
4. We may notice that acquittal of the accused by the learned trial court was mainly based upon contradictory statements of PW.1 and PW.3 and the fact that the injured himself in the complaint had stated that the injuries were caused by Kassi while in his statement before the Court he had stated that injuries were caused by Phali blow. The reasoning given by the learned trial court for acquitting both the accused does not in any way appear to be contrary to the settled cannons of law and certainly the prosecution and failed to prove its case against the accused. Learned counsel appearing for the State place heavy reliance upon the statement of Attar Singh under Section 313 Cr.P.c. to contend that Mukhtiar Singh was present at the site he also stated that injury was caused by Kassi and as such the case of the prosecution is fully supported even by the statement of accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
5. This argument of the learned counsel for the States suffers from basic fallacy. The counsel has failed to read the statement of the accused in its entirety. The statement of Attar Singh does not implicate himself. On the contrary, it is specifically stated by him as under:-
"...In the meantime, Sh. Baljit armed with a kassi who was returning from the field, also reached there. When he gave a blow of Kassi to me, I moved to other side to ward off the blow and as such he sustained the Kassi blow on his feet by himself. I went to the house of Sh. Rattan. Mukhtiar Singh and Saranjit were not present at the spot..."
6. The above statement of Attar Singh is clear on two facts; firstly that none of the accused was armed with kassi and secondly none of them was responsible for the injury suffered by Baljit Singh. It is also not disputed before us even by the learned counsel for the State that the weapon of offence (kassi) was not recovered. Material and cogent evidence in the shape of blood stain earth was not even collected by the Investigating Officer and as such the expert evidence in that regard could not be produced by the prosecution. In light of these facts, we cannot accept the contention of the State that statement of Attar Singh should be taken to be admission in evidence, entire or in part. There are material discrepancies and contradiction in the statements of the different witnesses particularly PW.1, PW.5 and PW.6. Learned trial court has rightly observed that to some extent they lend support to the case put forward by the defence. According to the prosecution accused Saranjit caught hold of Baljit while accused Attar Singh gave kassi blow on the left leg of Baljit and when the complainant rushed to rescue his father then, the accused Attar Singh gave fist low to him and he fell down. However, in his earlier statement, he had stated that accused Saranjit Singh caught hold of me and accused Attar Singh, who was holding kassi in his hands gave its below on his ankle as a result of which he fell down on the ground and his leg was cut. According to the statement of PW.1 in court, he was stated that Saranjit Singh caught hold of him from behind and accused Attar Singh gave a Phali blow on his left leg due to which his leg was cut. This clearly shows that contradiction relates to material facts of the prosecution case. There was only one major injury allegedly suffered by Baljit Singh, which too was on his leg, as such, he was expected to state one and the same version at all relevant point of time which ought to be the truth. The contradictions and discrepancies are not of informal nature. The medical evidence, as reflected in the medico legal report exhibit P.4 shows grievous injuries on the person of Baljit Singh but that by itself would not render the accused guilty of the offence. The prosecution must prove commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt and ought to establish the fact that injury in question was caused by Attar Singh.
7. We may also notice that object of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating evidence against the accused so as to provide him an opportunity to explain such incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him/them. At the same time, it is also correct that an incriminating circumstances which accused admitted in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.c. in that event the court could take note of such admission and they need not be ignored by the court and can be used for arriving at a finding that the accused had committed the offence. Reference in this regard can be made to the case of Nirmal Pasi and Anr. State of Bihar J.T.2002 (6) SC 28 and State of U.P. v. Lakhmi J.T. 1998 (1) S.C. 679.
8. Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, at best, it can be said that Attar Singh admitted the occurrence and the fact that Baljit Singh suffered an injury with the kassi which he was carrying. The admission of the accused has to be taken in its entirety and the court cannot pick up one sentence and read the same dehors the entire paragraph and make the same as basis for conviction of the accused, more particularly and despite the fact that there prosecution has failed to prove its case. Furthermore, on the basis of the evidence produced on record, learned trial court acquitted the accused. The view taken by the learned trial court cannot be termed as perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. The judgment is also in consonance with the settled principle of law. Once the trial court has taken a view which is plausible, possible and is legally sustainable, the High Court would not normally interfere in such a view only for the reason that another view could also be taken. Advantage thereof must go to the accused. Reference in this regard can also be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases Bhim Singh Rup Singh v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1974 Supreme Court 286 and Chandrakant Ganpat Sovitkar etc. v. State of Maharashtra A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1290 In Bhim Singh Rup Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"...The appellate court has power to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion in an appeal against acquittal. In exercising this power the appellate court, should not only consider every matter on record having a hearing on the questions of fact and the reasons given by the court below in support of its order of acquittal but it must express its reasons in its judgment which led it to hold that the acquittal is not justified. The appellate court must bear in mind the fact that the trial court had the benefit of seeing the witnesses in the witness box and the presumption of innocence is not weakened by the order of acquittal. Therefore, if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of the trial court. AIR 1961 SC 715 and AIR 1971 SC 460, Rel. on."
9. For the reasons afore-stated, we find no merit in this appeal against acquittal. The same is dismissed.