Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Chet Ram And Others on 12 March, 2019
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal. No.: 58 of 2007
Decided on: 12.03.2019
.
State of Himachal Pradesh ....Appellant.
Versus
Chet Ram and others ... Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
_____________________________________________________________
For the appellant : Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy
r Advocate General.
For the respondents : Nemo.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this appeal, appellant/State has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, HP, in Criminal Case No. 55/2 of 2005, dated 18.10.2006, vide which, learned trial Court acquitted the accused therein who were tried for commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 355, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC').
2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that complainant Soma Devi, who was the wife of Chet Ram, was ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 21:59:21 :::HCHP residing with her nephew at Solan. She used to do sewing work at Rajgarh. On 05.08.2005, complainant alongwith Hem Raj, Vikram and his wife had gone to Haripurdhar temple.
.
While on their way back to Rajgarh in a bus at Nohradhar, accused persons entered the bus and started beating Hem Raj. Complainant came to the rescue of Hem Ram but accused kept on beating Hem Raj. Thereafter near Choordhar bye-pass, accused persons got down from the bus alongwith Hem Raj and the complainant and took them inside a godown, where faces of the complainant and Hem Raj were painted with black colour by the accused. The complainant and Hem Raj were also forced to sit inside the godown for about 45 minutes. Both the complainant and Hem Raj received injuries. The matter was reported to the Police vide report Ext. PW14/A, on the basis of which, FIR Ext. PW13/B was registered. Investigation was carried out. Spot map was prepared, tickets of the bus were taken into custody and both the complainant as also Hem Ram were got medically examined. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed in the Court and as a prima facie case was made against ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 21:59:21 :::HCHP the accused, they were charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 355, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and .
claimed trial.
4. Learned trial Court vide its judgment under challenge acquitted all the accused after holding that neither independent witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution nor the statements of either the complainant or Hem Ram were convincing so as to convict the accused. Learned trial Court held that the case of the prosecution was not supported by any of the independent witnesses as none of them stated to have witnessed any altercation. Learned trial Court also held that there was delay in the investigation, which had gone unexplained and benefit of the same has to go to the accused. It also held that two witnesses mentioned by complainant and Hem Raj, had denied that they were in the bus with Hem Raj and the complainant. Learned trial Court also held that both complainant and Hem Raj had made improvements in their statements and their contentions stood belied even by the statement of the Investigating Officer. Learned trial Court also held that the statements of the complainant as also Hem Raj contradicted the medical evidence. It also held that the complainant as also Hem Raj ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 21:59:21 :::HCHP were not having good terms with the accused as one of the accused Chet Ram was the husband of the complainant and complainant had left her house and was residing with Hem .
Raj. On this count, learned trial Court held that fabrication and concoction by Hem Raj cannot be ruled out. Learned trial Court accordingly acquitted the accused for commission of offences alleged against them.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal.
6. I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General and also gone through the records of the case as well as judgment passed by the learned trial Court.
7. A perusal of the record demonstrates that 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case. PW1 Vijay Singh, who as per the prosecution, was an independent witness stated in the Court that no incident occurred as alleged by the complainant in his presence. Similarly, PW2 has also not supported the case of the prosecution. This witness deposed that on 05.08.2005, complainant, her husband Chet Ram and brothers of Chet Ram as also Hem Raj came to his shop. Chet Ram was asking the complainant to come back to the house as she was ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 21:59:21 :::HCHP residing out for the last six months. This witness further deposed that he tried to have the matter settled amongst them but they did not listen to him and all of them went to .
the Police Chowki. Another witness PW5 Vikram Singh has also not supported the case of the prosecution and he has also deposed in the Court that nothing happened in his presence. PW6 Smt. Chander Kala, who is also an independent witness also deposed that nothing happened in her presence. The driver of the bus Laiq Ram was also examined by the prosecution as PW8 and he also deposed in the Court that in his presence nothing had happened. He deposed in the Court that in his presence no quarrel took place. As per him, he was asked to stop the bus by some persons which he did, upon which few persons de-boarded the bus. Statement of PW9 Suchha Nand, who was conductor of the bus in issue is also to the same effect. All these independent witnesses have been subjected to lengthy cross examination by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, however, a perusal of their cross examination demonstrates that the same contains nothing so as to strengthen the case of the prosecution.
8. In this background, without any corroboration on record, learned trial Court has rightly refused to rely upon ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 21:59:21 :::HCHP self serving statements of PW10 Soma Devi (Complainant) as also PW11 Hem Ram. Incidentally, a perusal of the statements of PW10 Soma Devi and PW11 Hem Raj .
demonstrates that there are major contradictions in their respective statements with regard to the occurrence of the incident. For example, PW10 has deposed that accused Chet Ram, Randeep and Devinder entered the bus and they started beating Hem Raj first, whereas Hem Raj in his statement has deposed that accused after entering the bus started beating Soma Devi first. A perusal of the record further demonstrates that the findings returned by learned trial Court that improvements were made in their statements by Soma Devi and Hem Raj, are duly borne out from the records of the case. Their contention that they had received injuries has not been supported even by the Investigating Officer. It is also a matter of record that accused Chet Ram is the estranged husband of the complainant. It has also come on record that the complainant was not residing with her husband but was residing with Hem Raj, who incidentally happened to be her nephew. As there was enmity between the complainant and the accused, the possibility of the accused bing falsely implicated by the complainant can also not be ruled out. ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 21:59:21 :::HCHP
9. Even otherwise, from the evidence on record it cannot be said that the prosecution was able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There is no .
independent witness who has corroborated the story of the prosecution that the accused after entering the bus either physically abused the complainant and Hem Raj or that the accused after alighting from the bus took the complainant and Hem Raj inside a godown where their faces were painted with black colour by the accused and they were wrongfully restrained.
In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the findings of acquittal returned by the learned trial Court in favour of the accused are either perverse or not borne out from the records of the case. Therefore, as this Court does not finds any merit in this appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 12, 2019.
(narender) ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 21:59:21 :::HCHP