Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rahul Sharma vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 4 February, 2015
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc No. A-1133-MA of 2014 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc No. A-1133-MA of 2014 (O&M)
Date of decision : 04.02.2015
Rahul Sharma ......Applicant
versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate
for the applicant
RITU BAHRI , J.
Crl. Misc. No. 21730 of 2014 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 67 days in filing CRM-A-1133-MA-2014 is condoned.
The application stands disposed of accordingly. Main case Challenge is to the order/judgment dated 03.03.2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, whereby the complaint filed against respondent Nos. 2 to 6 under Sections 325/323/506/34 IPC was dismissed and the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 6 was acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
The complainant/applicant has partition dispute with accused Gobind Sharma and litigation was pending in this regard. Gobind Sharma and his family wanted to disposes the complainant from the land which was under GAURAV 2015.03.19 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Misc No. A-1133-MA of 2014 (O&M) -2-
cultivation of the complainant since many years. On 27.06.2005, the complainant was irrigating the paddy saplings sown by him in his fields where he saw two tractors coming towards his fields. The complainant saw Gobind Sharma armed with datar, Sanjiv Kumar armed with gandasi, Dev Raj armed with dang, Ashwani Kumar and Arjun also armed with dangs sitting on the tractors along with 3-4 unidentified persons. When the complainant stopped the accused to not to take possession of the land, they started giving blows to him with their alleged weapons. Rajesh Kumari, mother of the complainant also arrived and intervened to save the complainant but the accused gave her injuries. On raising alarm, brother of the complainant Sanjiv Kumar was attracted to the place of occurrence and on seeing him, all the accused ran away with their respective weapons on their tractors. The complainant and Rajesh Kumari were taken to P.H.C, Dinanagar from where they were referred to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, where they were medically examined on the same day i.e 27.06.2005.
On the statement of the complainant, F.I.R No. 94 dated 03.07.2005 was registered in police station Dinanagar.
In the preliminary evidence, the complainant examined Jagjiwan Lal as C.W.1, Amarjit Singh as C.W.2, Complainant himself stepped into witness box as C.W.3, Rajesh Kumari as C.W.4 and Doctor Ramesh Mahajan as GAURAV 2015.03.19 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Misc No. A-1133-MA of 2014 (O&M) -3- C.W.5. Thereafter, the complainant closed the evidence.
After finding sufficient grounds to proceed against Gobind Sharma, Sanjiv Kumar and Dev Raj under Sections 323/325/506 IPC were found to be made out and they have been summoned to face the trial vide order dated 01.08.2007 whereas the complaint against accused Arjun and Ashwani Kumar was dismissed.
Presence of the accused was procured and the case was fixed for pre-charge evidence. Complainant in his pre-charge evidence again appeared into witness box as C.W.1 and examined Hira Singh Head Constable as C.W.2, Doctor Ramesh Mahajan, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur as C.W.3 and Doctor Jagjiwan Ram as C.W.4.
The accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 325/323/506/34 IPC vide order dated 24.10.2013, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and also sought to further examine the witnesses of the complainant after framing of charges. Accordingly, the complainant witnesses were re-called for further cross examination after framing of charge and the accused further cross examined the prosecution witnesses and complainant closed after charge evidence.
Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C have been recorded separately wherein the entire incriminating evidence appearing against them has been pt GAURAV 2015.03.19 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Misc No. A-1133-MA of 2014 (O&M) -4- to them in question answer form to which they denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. In defence, they examined Jai Kiran as D.W.1 HC Parwinder Singh as D.W.2 and tendered into evidence certified copy of judgment dated 06.12.2008 (D-1) and closed the evidence.
The trial Court proceeded to determine the following points:-
"A. Whether on 27.06.2005 at about 12.00 Noon in the area of village Bharth \Qazi Chak accused Gobind Sharma in furtherance of common intention of other accused caused grievous hurt to Rahul Sharma by blow from reverse side of datar?
B. Whether on the same date time and place accused Sanjiv kumar in furtherance of common intention of co-accused caused hurt to Gobind Sharma by blow from reverse side of gandasi?
C. Whether on the same date time and place accused Dev Raj in furtherance of common intention of co-accused caused hurt to Gobind Sharma by means of dang?
D. Whether on the same date time and place accused in furtherance of common intention of each other committed criminal intimidation by threatening the complainant Rahul Sharma?
GAURAV 2015.03.19 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Misc No. A-1133-MA of 2014 (O&M) -5-
The trial Court after going through the facts of the case, came to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the points of determination against the accused beyond shadow of doubt. The trial Court held that the complainant has concealed true and material facts from this Court. The version of the complainant was found to be concocted and his mother also was not found to be worthy of credit in so far it relates to the participation of the accused in the alleged occurrence is concerned.
As per the complainant, the alleged occurrence took place on 27.06.2005 at 12 Noon when they were irrigating their paddy saplings so sown in their fields and Gobind Sharma armed with datar, Sanjiv Kumar armed with gandasi, Dev Raj armed with dang, Ashwani Kumar and Rajan were armed with dang and they were sitting on a tractor along with 3-4 unidentified persons and as per the complainant, accused Dev Raj gave a lalkara and accused Gobind Sharma gave a datar blow from reverse side of heard of the complainant whereas accused Sanjv Kumar gave gandasi blow from reverse side on the head of the complainant. This entire version itself is in contradiction with his very first version so disclosed to him by police in Ex C1 because in that very first version complainant has not attributed any weapon to accused Dev Raj and only a lalkara was attributed.
GAURAV 2015.03.19 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Misc No. A-1133-MA of 2014 (O&M) -6-
Further complainant alleged that the accused wants to take possession of the land but he has failed to disclose the killa number of the land which as per him accused were bent upon to take possession from him. Rather complainant has withheld material fact that on 22.06.2005 revenue officials had separated the possession of the parties in pursuance of the partition order in presence of respectable and this has been so admitted by the complainant and also proved by D.W.1. So, the entire version of the complainant was found to be false.
The order/judgment dated 03.03.2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, does not suffer from any illegality of law or misreading of facts and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 have rightly been acquitted by the Court.
Accordingly, Crl. Misc No. A-1133-MA of 2014 stands dismissed.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 04.02.2015 G Arora GAURAV 2015.03.19 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document