Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mewa Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 December, 2011
Author: Jasbir Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Sabina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.A-613-MA of 2011(O&M)
Date of decision: 12.12.2011
Mewa Singh
.....Applicant
versus
State of Haryana and others
......Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Sandeep Goyat, Advocate for the applicant
Jasbir Singh, J.
This application has been filed by Mewa Singh under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant leave to file an appeal against judgment dated 24.2.2011, acquitting respondent Nos.2 to 7 of the charges framed against them.
The above respondents were made to face trial for commission of offences under Sections 307, 325, 323/34 IPC. FIR No.298 dated 11.4.2004 was registered against them on a statement made by Rameshwar (PW1) on 7.5.2004 at 4.00 am. In his statement, the above witness has stated that he and Surajmal son of Bhalla Ram are involved in an old dispute for the last several years. Sometime earlier to the date of occurrence, their children had quarreled wherein his brother Rama and Dalbir were falsely implicated.
On 6.5.2004 at about 9.30/ 10.00 pm he, his brother Mewa Singh, Kuldeep and Jai Singh sons of Mewa Singh, were standing in front Crl.Misc.No.A-613-MA of 2011(O&M) 2 of the house of his brother Mewa Singh. In the meantime, Surajmal son of Bhalla Ram carrying an axe, Suresh son of Om Parkash carrying Lathi, Ram Pal son of Bhalla carrying an axe and Maya wife of Suraj Mal carrying a Lathi came there and just after coming, Suraj Mal gave an axe blow on the head of Mewa Singh, Suresh dealt a Lathi blow on the left hand and ear of Jai Singh and Ram Pal gave an axe blow on the head of Mewa Singh. In the meantime, Ramratti wife of Dalbir also came there who gave a Lathi blow by Maya on her back and chest. When they cried, Mahendri wife of Mewa Singh and Kashmir son of Inder also came from their house. On seeing them, the accused party fled away from the scene. In the meantime, Wazir son of Bhalla carrying a Lathi, Dharma son of Bhalla carrying an axe, Ramesh son of Surajmal carrying Lathi came there. Wazir gave Lathi blows on the head of Kuldeep and also on the head and back of Ramratti whereas accused Dharma gave an axe blow on the head, elbow of Mahendri, whereas accused Ramesh gave Lathi blows on the fingers and legs of Kashmir. In the meantime, Om Parkash carrying Jaili came there and struck the same on the navel (belly-button) of Kuldeep and on the legs of Kashmir. His brother Mewa Singh fell down. They started making noise and when they were attending Mewa Singh, many people gathered there and all the aforesaid persons fled away from the place of occurrence.
It is further stated that after arranging a private vehicle, the injured were got admitted in general hospital at Hisar. As per medico legal reports of the injured, no cognizable offence was made out, which led to recording of a DDR No.21 on 7.5.2004. X-ray reports of the injured were received on 11.5.2004, showing fractured on Kuleep and Mewa Singh, thereafter an FIR under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC was Crl.Misc.No.A-613-MA of 2011(O&M) 3 registered. Thereafter, on opinion given by a doctor, offence under Section 307 IPC was also added in the above FIR.
During investigation, respondent Nos.5 to 7 were found innocent, others were arrested. It has also come on record that statement of Mewa Singh could not be recorded as he was declared unfit by the doctors. The investigating officer went to the spot, got prepared a rough site plan with correct marginal notes, recorded statements of the witnesses and also removed blood stained earth also from the place of occurrence.
On completion of investigation, final report was put in Court. Case was committed for trial to the competent Court of jurisdiction. The respondents No.2 to 4 were charge sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On 2.8.2008, during trial, respondent Nos.5 to 7 were also summoned to face trial on an application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. They were also charge sheeted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 325/34 IPC. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence. It is necessary to mention here that during trial accused Ram Pal died and proceedings qua him were dropped vide order dated 7.10.2010. On conclusion of prosecution's evidence, statements of the private respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating evidence was put to them, which they denied, claimed innocence and false implication. They also led evidence in defence.
The trial Court on appraisal of evidence found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and accordingly, by giving benefit of doubt, the private respondents were acquitted of the charges framed against them. The trial Court by taking note of statements made by the injured witnesses and ASI Raghubir Singh Crl.Misc.No.A-613-MA of 2011(O&M) 4 (PW13) and also site plan, came to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to pin-point the place of occurrence. It was also noted with concern that FIR was recorded at a belated stage, for which no explanation was given. Occurrence had taken place on 6.5.2004 at 9.30/ 10.00 pm, however, DDR No.21 was recorded only on 7.5.2004 at 7.00 am. The trial Court has noted delay on the part of the witnesses in reporting the matter to the police. It was also noted that injured have failed to make statement to the investigating officer and continue to wait for the arrival of Rameshwar (PW2). The trial Court has also noted serious contradictions in the statements made by Jai Singh (PW1), Rameshwar (PW2) and Kuldeep Singh (PW3) regarding mode and manner in which injuries were given to the injured by the private respondents. By taking note of the sequence of events, it was also observed that common object on the part of the respondents to cause injuries was not proved on record. To say that an attempt has been made to suppress genesis of the occurrence, the trial Court referred to the statements made by Dr.Pushpinder Kumar (PW14), who in his cross-examination has admitted that on 7.5.2004, he has also medico- legally examined Suresh son of Om Parkash (respondent No.4) and vide MLR (Ex.D3) found the following injuries at his person:-
"1. There was a lacerated wound over right parietal region of size 3.5 x 0.5 cm obliquely placed.
2. There was an abrasion on upper part of left scapular region of size 3x1 cm."
It was further deposed by the witness that Om Parkash (respondent No.3) was also medico-legally examined against report Ex.D4 and following injuries were found at his person:-
Crl.Misc.No.A-613-MA of 2011(O&M) 5
"1. There was a lacerated wound over right forearm near wrist ulner side of size 4x1 cm.
2. There was an abrasion on left scapular region upper side obliquely placed of size 5x2 cm.
3. There was an abrasion over left shoulder tip of size 2x2 cm."
Dharampal one of the accused was also examined by the above witness on 7.5.2004 and as per MLR (Ex.D5), following injuries were found at his person:-
"1. There was deformity, swelling, tenderness over right leg below right knee involving upper half of right leg. There was an abrasion of size 2x2 cm. on lateral aspect of right leg."
Wazir (respondent No.2) was also medico-legally examined by PW14 and following injuries were found at his person:-
"1. There was a laceration over right parieto occipital region of size .5x.2 cm."
Rampal one of the accused was also examined and following injuries were found at his person:-
"1. There was an abrasion of size 1x1 cm. over left thigh. Tenderness was present.
2. An abrasion on right foot, posterior end of size 2x2 cm. It was further noted by the Court that regarding admission of injured -accused in the hospital, an intimation was received by ASI Raghubir Singh (PW13). It was also deposed by above witness that during investigation, it was noticed that the accused party had also received injuries at the time of alleged occurrence. The investigating officer had also collected MLRs and X-ray reports of the accused, however, he failed to Crl.Misc.No.A-613-MA of 2011(O&M) 6 attach those with the final report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The Court noted that Dharampal accused was found having multiple fractured on his person and remained admitted in the hospital for quite sometime. It was also noted by the trial Judge that none of the prosecution witness had made an attempt to describe the mode and manner in which injuries were received by the private respondents. It was also rightly said by the trial Judge that the injuries received by the accused party / respondents were not self suffered. Three respondents were also found innocent during investigation.
Taking note of above facts, benefit of doubt was given to respondent Nos.2 to 7 and they were rightly acquitted of the charges framed against them. The judgment under challenge is as per evidence on record. No illegality in reading of the evidence has been indicated on the part of the trial Court.
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court.
A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:-
"We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and Crl.Misc.No.A-613-MA of 2011(O&M) 7 merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference."
Similarly, in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 and in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, it was held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused has to be adopted by the Court.
In Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011(9) SCC 479, the Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
"8) It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-
appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon Crl.Misc.No.A-613-MA of 2011(O&M) 8 which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed." The application is also barred by limitation. No plausible explanation has been given for condonation of delay as well.
Dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh)
Judge
12.12.2011 (Sabina)
gk Judge