Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P. vs Baldev Bhandari And Ors. on 10 August, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006(1)SHIMLC33
Author: K.C. Sood
Bench: K.C. Sood
JUDGMENT K.C. Sood, J.
1. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge, Sirrnaur at Nahan, on 30th March, 2005.
2. It appears, the respondents herein, thirteen in number, were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 323, 325, 342, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("Atrocities Act" for short).
The prosecution case was :
3. On May 6, 2003 at about 7.00 in the evening Parmod Kumar (PW-1), a "Koli" by caste, was working in a shop. He noticed that three of the respondents Madan Bhandari, Kamlender Bhandari and Prashant Bhandari were giving beatings to Lekh Raj (PW-7). Baldev Bhandari also appeared there. They were accompanied by another 25 persons. All of them gave beatings to Lekh Raj and dragged him to the house of Devender Bhandari. Lekh Raj bled profusely. Lateron Mohan Bhandari and Madan Bhandari came to the shop of Promod Kumar and started beating him for no reason. They abused him calling him "Koli Kalinda". They dragged him to the house of Devender Bhandari. He was abused by the accused by saying, "Sale Koli Kalindey Inkay Deemag Bare Chad Gaye Aur Mere Teen Tukray Karke Dukan Main Fainkney Ko Kaha". All of them gave beatings to Promod Kumar. Promod Kumar went to the Police Station, but his complaint was not recorded. Lateron, he made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police at Nahan and that is how the case came to be registered.
4. Learned trial Judge found the evidence led by the prosecution discrepant and unworthy of reliance. He noticed several contradictions, improvements in the testimony of the prosecution. On the appreciation of the evidence he found that the evidence of the prosecution does not inspire confidence nor the medical evidence supports the version of the prosecution.
5. Learned trial Judge found that even though Promod Kumar stated that it was Madan Bhandari, Kamlender Bhandari, Prashant Bhandari and Baldev Bhandari accompanied by another 25 persons came to his shop and started beating Lekh Raj. All of them gave beatings to Lekh Raj and dragged him in the house of Devender Bhandari. However, in cross-examination he admitted that a case of hurt was registered at Police Station, Sarahan and Lekh Raj was convicted after trial. He also admitted that in that case he appeared as a defence witness on behalf of Lekh Raj. This material fact was not stated either in the complaint or in the testimony of Promod Kumar. Lekh Raj admits in his testimony that on the relevant date a quarrel took place between him and Prashant Bhandari. In that quarrel he inflicted a knife blow on the back of Prashant Bnandari and the knife was snatched by accused Madan. Learned trial Judge noticed that even though Promod Kumar (PW-1) states that he was given beatings by 35-40 persons in the house of Devender Bhandari and he received injuries on his head and became unconscious, but the Medical evidence does not support him. According to the Medical Certificate no injury either external or internal was found on any part of his body. This, noticed learned trial Judge, belies the story, of the prosecution that he was given beatings by the accused, and other 35-40 persons. Learned trial Judge also found that the testimony of Promod Kumar is not corroborated by other evidence on record. The conviction could not be based on the evidence which found to be lacking credibility.
6. This apart, under Rule-7 of Rules framed under the Atrocities Act, the investigation of a case has to be undertaken by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is no longer res-integra that Rule-7 is mandatory and violation of this Rule i.e. investigation of a case involving offences under, the Atrocities Act conducted by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police would vitiate the trial.
7. In the present case admittedly the major part of the case was investigated by the Sub-Inspector of Police and it is only at the fag-end that Deputy Superintendent of Police stepped in and submitted the final report to the Court.
8. In view of the foregoing reasons, the acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge cannot be said to be visited by any illegality or dehors the evidence on record.
No interference is called for.
No merit.
Dismissed. Leave refused.