Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P. vs Amar Singh And Ors. on 4 August, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006(1)SHIMLC1
Author: Surjit Singh
Bench: Surjit Singh
JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, J.
1. Present appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal, passed in favour of the respondents by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kangra.
2. One Des Raj lodged a report to the police on 9.10.1991 that on the previous night around 10.30 p.m., when he returned to his place of residence after day's work, he saw that Amar Singh, respondent No. 1, his neighbour, had made an encroachment on a portion of his court-yard, while raising a Danga. He further reported that when he asked Amar Singh, respondent No. 1 as to why the encroachment had been made, the latter started hurling abuses at him and soon his son Vinod Kumar, respondent No. 3 and wife Makhani Devi, respondent No. 2 appeared on the scene. It was also reported that Vinod Kumar, respondent No. 3 was armed with a hockey-stick and he dealt a blow of the hockey-stick on Des Raj's head and another blow on his arm. The police got said Des Raj medically examined. It was found that his arm, on which a hockey-stick blow was given, had been fractured. A case, under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, was formally registered against the respondents on the receipt of medicolegal report. Spot was inspected by the police. Statements of the persons, who claimed to have witnessed the incident, were recorded. On the completion of the investigation, report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was filed alongwith the relevant papers.
3. All the three respondents were charged with an offence, under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They pleaded not guilty and were, therefore, put on trial. At the end of the trial, the learned judicial Magistrate found that the case of the prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the respondents were acquitted.
4. Appellant's grievance is that the evidence has not been scrutinized correctly by the learned trial Magistrate and it is because of this that the respondents have been acquitted.
5. Having heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record, I feel that the learned trial Magistrate was not justified in returning the finding that the charge does not stand proved against any of the respondents. The charge, in my considered view, as against Vinod Kumar, respondent No. 3, is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Injured Des Raj appeared as PW-1 and testified, in no uncertain terms, that when on return to his house late in the evening, he saw that a Danga had been raised on a portion of his court-yard, he asked respondent Amar Singh, his cousin, about the same, upon which the said respondent started hurling abuses at him. He further stated that soon Vinod Kumar and his mother Makhani Devi came and that respondent Vinod Kumar, who was carrying a hockey-stick, dealt a blow of that stick on his head and another blow on his arm as a result of which his arm was fractured. He stated that Ext. P-1 was the hockey-stick with which the blows had been dealt on his head and arm.
7. PW-3 Piar Chand, a brother of Des Raj, fully corroborated his (Des Raj's) testimony, so far as the accusation of dealing of hockey-stick blows on his head and arm by respondent Vinod Kumar is concerned.
8. Prosecution examined one more witness, namely Bishan Dass (PW-8), who allegedly witnessed the occurrence. No doubt, this witness did not corroborate the prosecution version, but he is contradicted by his statement, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with which he was duly confronted. One more witness examined by the prosecution, namely Dharam Chand (PW-4), in whose presence the hockey-stick Ext. P-l was produced by respondent Vinod Kumar, also turned hostile, but the Investigating Officer of the case, namely S.I. Suresh Chand (PW-5), proved the fact of production of hockey-stick Ext. P-l by Vinod Kumar, respondent.
9. PW-4 Dharam Chand though did not support the prosecution on the plea that the hockey-stick was produced by respondent Vinod Kumar, he did state a fact which lends assurance to the testimony of injured Des Raj (PW-1) and his brother Piar Chand (PW-3). The witness stated that in his presence there had been a compromise between Amar Singh, respondent and the injured, pertaining to the incident, in question, and that Amar Singh had apologized and had assured that in future he and his family members would not indulge in use of criminal force. This statement corroborates the prosecution version that Vinod Kumar, respondent had beaten up Des Raj.
10. The testimony of PW-1 Des Raj, injured is further corroborated by the medicolegal evidence in the form of medical certificate Ext. PW-6/A and the testimony of the doctor who conducted the medicolegal examination, namely PW-6 S.K. Mahajan. As per statement of PW-6 S.K. Mahajan, two injuries, one on the forehead in the form of a contused lacerated wound and another on the right wrist joint, were noticed. The wrist joint was got X-rayed and the X-ray film Ext. PW-6/C showed fracture of lower end of ulna.
11. The FIR, which was lodged by Des Raj (PW-1) on the next following morning, also corroborates his testimony as regards the injuries caused by hockey-stick by respondent Vinod Kumar.
12. There does not seem to be any reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1 Des Raj, the injured and his brother Piar Chand (PW-3), especially when their testimony is corroborated by medicolegal evidence as aforesaid. No doubt, minor contradictions are there in the testimony of these two witnesses as regards the role of other respondents, but that by itself does not make their testimony unreliable in regard to the part played by respondent Vinod Kumar. Needless to say that rule of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has no application in our system of administration of justice. It is the duty of the Court to separate the truth from falsehood.
13. As a result of the above stated position, the appeal is accepted, the impugned judgment is set aside and consequently respondent Vinod Kumar is convicted of the offence, under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month.
14. As regards the remaining two respondents, the appeal is dismissed, because the medicolegal evidence does not corroborate the testimony of the injured that besides two blows of hockey-stick given by respondent Vinod Kumar, kicks and fist blows were given by respondents Amar Singh and Makhani Devi. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
15. Respondent Vinod Kumar is directed to surrender to his bonds and appear before the learned trial Magistrate within a month to serve out the sentence, failing which, the said Magistrate shall take appropriate steps to ensure that the sentence awarded by this Court is carried into operation.