Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunita vs Rameshwar And Ors on 16 January, 2015
Author: Kuldip Singh
Bench: Kuldip Singh
SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA
2015.01.21 11:19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No. 1734 of 2014 and
CRM No. A-78-MA of 2014 (O/M)
Date of decision : 16.1.2015
Sunita ..... Appellant
Versus
Rameshwar and others ...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
Present:- Mr. R.S. Dhull, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant.
1. Whether the Reporters of local newspaper may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?
-.- -.-
KULDIP SINGH, J. (ORAL)
This order will dispose of application being CRM No. 1734 of 2014, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 266 days in filing the accompanying appeal against the acquittal of the private respondents for offences under Sections 323, 324, 427, 452, 506, 120-B, 34 IPC.
It comes out that the present appellant had filed a criminal complaint against the private respondents, stating that there was a dispute regarding some part of plots No. 88/12/3, 12/4, owned by the complainant. A civil suit was also pending, in which injunction was granted in favour of the complainant. It is stated that on 26.7.2003, at about 8:00 AM, when the complainant was alone in her SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2015.01.21 11:19 CRM No. 1734 of 2014 and -2- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM No. A-78-MA of 2014 (O/M) house, all the accused persons armed with dandas and bricks trespassed into her house with intent to cause grievous injuries to her. The accused started raising a wall over her plot. When the complainant objected to it, then accused Rameshwar, who was armed with a danda, inflicted injury on her breast and thereafter, accused Rajbir gave a brick blow on her fingers and accused Anand gave a kick blow on her left leg below knee. She raised hue and cry, on which her sister-in-law (Jethani) Satwanti, wife of Rajinder and Maya Devi (Devrani), wife of Vedpal arrived at the spot and saved her. She was medico legally examined on 26.7.2003. She reported the matter to the police, which recorded the entry in the Daily Diary Register.
After recording the pre-charge evidence, accused were chargesheeted under Sections 323, 427 read with Section 34 and 506 IPC.
In the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused pleaded false implication.
In defence, accused examined DW1 ASI Narender Kumar, who proved the report of Deputy Superintendent of Police regarding complaint No. 113 dated 4.10.2003. ASI Sukhbir Singh was examined as DW2, who has proved copy of FIR No. 24, dated 3.2.2009 (Ex.D2). In addition to this, the copy of judgment dated 14.7.2005, the copy of order dated 4.6.2011, the copy of Jamabandi SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2015.01.21 11:19 CRM No. 1734 of 2014 and -3- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM No. A-78-MA of 2014 (O/M) for the year 2008-09 and the copy of judgment dated 8.1.2010, were also produced as Ex.D3 to Ex.D6.
After hearing the learned counsel for complainant, learned counsel for the accused and going through the file, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, acquitted the accused.
I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and have also carefully gone through the file.
After going through the trial Court file, I am of the view that there is no illegality or error in the judgment of the trial Court dated 21.1.2013. As per the case of the complainant, the occurrence took place on 26.7.2003. However, the complaint was filed four months later i.e. on 16.11.2003. This caste a duty upon the trial Court to scrutinize the evidence of the complainant with greater care and caution.
The statement of Dr. Ravi Kanta, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Rohtak, shows that when the complainant was examined on 26.7.2003, following three injuries were found on her person :-
1. A reddish contusion of size 4 x 3 cm. over the lower aspect of left clevical area.
2. A reddish contusion of size 2 x 2 cm over the medial aspect of left leg about 5 cm below of left knee region.
3. Complaining of pain over the index finger of right hand.
Tenderness was present. No evidence of fresh mark of injuries was SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2015.01.21 11:19 CRM No. 1734 of 2014 and -4- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM No. A-78-MA of 2014 (O/M) present.
The injury No. 3, which is stated to be given with brick bat, was found only pain. No fresh injury mark was found. Therefore, her statement qua the injury given by accused Rajbir with a brick bat is not corroborated by medical evidence. The other two injuries were of reddish contusion on the lower aspect of left clevical area as well as on the left leg. These injuries were stated to have been given by accused Rameshwar with lathi and kick blow by Anand (accused).
I am of the view that such type of injuries could be self inflicted or self suffered, particularly in view of the bitter civil litigation pending between the parties and the other facts.
It also comes out that on the complaint of the complainant, police had conducted the inquiry, in which it was found that accused had not trespassed into her house. It was also found that the house of the complainant and accused adjoins each other and there was a common wall between their houses. During the rainy season, some portion of the said wall had fallen. When the accused were getting the said wall repaired, then the complainant reported the matter to the police and thereafter, the police arrived at the spot. Both the parties started fighting. It was found that both the parties pelted stones on each other, on account of which they received injuries. Since the police arrived at the spot, therefore, the SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2015.01.21 11:19 CRM No. 1734 of 2014 and -5- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM No. A-78-MA of 2014 (O/M) police brought the parties to Rohtak. The police challaned Rameshwar and his two sons Rajbir and Anand under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. The copy of Calendra was produced as Ex.D1.
It shows that the occurrence did not take place, as sought to be projected by the complainant. Even during inquiry by the police, the inhabitants of the village made joint statement before the police that the accused never trespassed into the house of the complainant and that the parties had actually pelted stones on each other. The trial Court also found that only two visible injuries were inflicted to the complainant, which were also minor in nature. Therefore, false implication is not ruled out.
I am of the view that the trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence of the complainant, has taken a view, which is supported by strong reasoning and the evidence on file. There is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the said order. Therefore, there is no ground to grant leave to appeal to the accused.
Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
(KULDIP SINGH) JUDGE 16.1.2015 sjks