Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parties Name vs Narain Singh Etc on 18 February, 2009
Author: Jasbir Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh
CR. MISC. NO. 9-MA OF 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: February 18, 2009.
Parties Name
State of Haryana
...APPLICANT
VERSUS
Narain Singh etc.
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. P.S.Sullar, D.A.G., Haryana,
for the applicant.
JASBIR SINGH, J.
Judgment.
State of Haryana has filed this application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant leave to file an appeal against judgment and order dated September 25. 2008 and September 27, 2008, respectively, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them for commission of an offence under Section 307 IPC. However, they were convicted and sentenced for commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 325 read with Section 149 IPC.
It was allegation against the respondents that they in furtherance of their common object had caused injuries to Risal Singh (PW1). Regarding prosecution case, the trial Court has noticed the following facts:
CR. MISC. NO. 9-MA OF 2009 -2-
"Shorn of unnecessary details, facts of prosecution case within short compass are that on 05-08-2008, a telephonic message was received from police post, General Hospital (GH), Bhiwani about admission of injured Risal Singh son of Bhajju Singh, Mohar Singh son of Risal Singh, Narain son of Godha Singh and Harpal son of Hawa Singh in connection of some fight in between them. Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) Mukhtiar Singh, Investigating Officer (I.O) went to Civil Hospital, Bhiwani and collected a rukka Ex. PO13 and Medico legal reports (MLRs) of injured. He moved application Ex. P14 before doctor to report about fitness of Risal Singh to make statement but he was declared unfit to make statement. On 06-08-2006, he was declared fit to make statement on that very application, so his statement Ex. P01 was recorded, wherein it was stated by him that on 05-08-2006, at about 6.00 p.m. He was sitting in front of his shop. In the mean time, a vehicle make Sumo being driven by accused Narain Singh stopped in front of his shop. Accused Sadhu, Narain Singh, Balbir, Santu and Harpal alighted from the same. Firstly, accused Narain Singh came and caused injuries in between fingers of his left hand with knife. Thereafter, Santu and Sadhu armed with 'dandas' (sticks) caused injuries on his waist and chin. Surender armed with danda caused injury on his waist. In the mean time, Balbir armed with danda came running and gave push blow on his left side. Thereafter, Ajit son of Balbir came running and started giving slap and fist blows. An other son of Balbir, whose name CR. MISC. NO. 9-MA OF 2009 -3- was not known to him, started giving kick and fist blows to him. Sandeep son of Narain Singh also gave slap and fist blows to him. Harpal son of Jagdish and nephew of Narain Singh also came running. He was having hockey in his hand and gave blow to him. On hearing noise, his son Mohar Singh came to spot and accused also caused injuries to him. On hearing their noise, his grand sons Amar son of Bir Singh, Deepak son of Mahender Singh and Jittu son of Mohar Singh came to spot. They rescued them from clutches of accused otherwise they would have caused more injuries. Accused caused injuries because a dispute was going on in between them since 10/ 12 years about land."
On receipt of intimation, initially, DDR was recorded. However, subsequent thereto, FIR No. 167 dated August 11, 2006, was registered against the respondents for commission of offences under Sections 148, 323, 325/ 149 IPC. On getting opinion of the Medical Board on October 23, 2006, offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was also added in the FIR. After completing necessary investigation, final report was put in Court for trial.
The prosecution produced 13 witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of the respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material was put to them. They denied the same and claimed false implication. They also led evidence in defence. The trial Court on appraisal of evidence acquitted them, so far as charge CR. MISC. NO. 9-MA OF 2009 -4- under Section 307 IPC is concerned. However, they were convicted and sentenced for other minor offences. Hence this application. While acquitting them for commission of offence under Section 307 IPC, the trial Court has observed as under:
"To prove an offence punishable under section 307 of IPC, prosecution is supposed to show that a person did an act with such intention or knowledge that said act can cause death. An intention of an accused to cause death is must. In the present case, injuries were not on vital parts of body of Risal Singh. As per statement of PW.04, injuries were on non-vital parts. As per opinion of PW.03, it cannot be presumed that injuries were dangerous to life. It was nowhere stated by him that said injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Unless it is proved by prosecution that injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, section 307 IPC is not attracted. PW.10 gave treatment to Risal Singh but he nowhere stated that injury was dangerous to life. Prosecution was supposed to ask him about nature of injury. Further, PW.07 did not conduct X-ray examination of Risal Singh. As per her statement, report Ex. P10 was given by doctor Satish. She was not in a position to tell that how this fracture can occur. However, PW.08 and PW.10 admitted in their cross examination that as Risal Singh was very old, so possibility of this fracture by fall could not be ruled out. It is alleged by accused that when PW.01 and PW.02 went to take possession of land illegally, PW.01 fell on sticks and got his ribs fractured. CR. MISC. NO. 9-MA OF 2009 -5- More so, as per statement of PW.10 , there was fracture of ribs on left side but PW.09 stated that three ribs of right side were fractured. If there were fractures on right side also then why PW.10 did not state to that effect. As per report, there was fracture of left ribs. As per statement of PW.09, fracture of right ribs was about 21 days old. It shows that ribs of Risal Singh were fractured much before 05.08.2006. It was stated by Risal Singh in his statement Ex. P01 that push blows were given on his left side but when he entered witness box as PW.01, it was stated by him that thrust blows were given on right side. He has changed his statement just to cover up statement of PW.09 because he stated about fracture of right ribs whereas treatment was given about fracture of left ribs. In these circumstances, it cannot be presumed that a case punishable under section 307 of IPC is made out. At the most, it can be presumed that a case punishable under Section 325 of IPC is made out because this injury is covered by section 320 of IPC."
We are of the opinion that the finding given by the trial Court is perfectly justified and is as per evidence on record. Admittedly, except one, other accused were armed with wooden sticks only. Had their intention been to kill Risal Singh, they would have come fully armed with deadly weapons. It is also not in dispute that injuries were also received by some of the respondents at the time of alleged occurrence. The trial Court has also noticed discrepancies in the medical statement regarding, fatal injury to Risal Singh, which resulted into adding of Section 307 IPC in the FIR. CR. MISC. NO. 9-MA OF 2009 -6- Counsel for the applicant has failed to indicate any misreading of evidence by the trial Court, on the basis of which any interference can be made by us.
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) page 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) page 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 merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference."
Counsel for the State has failed to show that the trial Court has committed any error on facts or material irregularity, which may necessitate any interference by this Court.
For the reasons, mentioned above, this application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( Jora Singh ) February 18, 2009. Judge DKC