Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Hp vs Ram Lal & Ors on 15 September, 2016
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.127 of 2016 IN .
Cr. Appeal No.424 of 2016
Date of decision: 15.9.2016
State of HP .....Petitioner
Vs
Ram Lal & ors ....Respondents.
Coram
of
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No.
For the Petitioner: Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Addl. AG
rt with Mr. J.S. Guleria,Asstt. AG.
For the Respondents: Mr. George, Advocate.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan J (Oral):
Heard. By the medium of this application, appellant has sought condonation of delay of 66 days that has crept in the filing of this appeal. Though the application has been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents, however, I find that there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay as has been spelt out in para 2 of the application. In addition thereto, this court cannot be oblivious to the fact that the departments of the State are riddled with red tapism where decision making does not lie in the hands of a single individual. Accordingly, the delay of 66 days n filing of the appeal is condoned. Application disposed of.
Cr.MP(M) No.126 of 20162 Leave to appeal granted. Appeal be registered.
Cr. Appeal No.424 of 20163. Respondents were put to trial for having committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 447, 323 and 188 IPC Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:08 :::HCHP 2read with section 149 IPC. Prosecution story was that the complainant Sh.Kartar Nath and the accused/ respondents were .
residents of Village Jaroda. There was a civil dispute between them as the respondents wanted to construct a road through the courtyard of the complainant. Interim orders of status quo were passed by the learned civil court in favour of complainant.
of However, on 22.6.2009 at about 7.00 pm, respondents are alleged to have gathered in front of the shop of the complainant and rt started digging his courtyard. Thereafter, respondents started pelting stones on the house and shop of the complainant and also gave beatings to him and his family members.
4. The matter was reported at Police station, Bharari, who reached the spot and recorded statements of the complainant Sh.Kartar Nath, under Section 154 Cr.PC. After registration of the FIR, spot map was prepared. Photographs of the spot were taken and stones and pieces of bricks, alleged to have been pelted on the house of the complainant, were also seized. Injured-
complainant, his daughter-in-law, Sunita Devi and grandson, Anurag were medically examined at CHC, Bharari and were opined to have sustained injuries which were simple in nature.
5. On the completion of the investigation, respondents were put to trial. Complainant Kartar Nath appeared as PW-1 and deposed that he had retired as Kanungo. He stated that respondents wanted to construct a road through his courtyard and the matter was already pending adjudication before the civil court, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:08 :::HCHP 3 which had granted an injunction. However, on 22.6.2009 at about 7.00 pm, respondents came at his house and pelted stones, .
thereby causing damage to his house. The respondents also took away his stone meant for washing clothes and one Okhali. He further stated that some of the accused had even proclaimed that they would eliminate him and set his house ablaze. He made a of telephonic call to Police station, Bharari and the police came to the spot. He further stated that he along with Sunita and Anurag rt suffered injuries.
6. In his cross-examination, complainant denied the suggestion that he had filed 15-20 cases against the villagers and volunteered to state that all the cases had been filed by the respondents, whereas he had filed only 1-2 cases. He admitted the suggestion that his daughter-in-law had filed case against the accused Dhani Ram. He had filed one case against Kaliya Ram, another case against Ram Lal, yet another case against Kalia Ram, all of whom are accused in this case. He expressed his inability to state that Tatima regarding his possession over Abadi-
deh land had been cancelled by DRO, Bilaspur. He conceded that the application for interim stay had been dismissed vide Ext PW-
1/C.He claimed to have been beaten up by hands and kicks by all the 16 respondents and claimed that 5-6 of them were even pelting stones. He denied the suggestion that no injuries were sustained by anyone and the MLCs were false.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:08 :::HCHP 47. PW-2 Madan Lal is the alleged independent eye witness of the occurrence, who deposed that he was present on .
the date and had seen the respondents throwing stones at the house of the complainant, but claimed that such stones had not been seized in his presence and was declared hostile. Upon cross examination by learned APP, he admitted that the stones of were seized by the police vide memo Ext PW-2/A. In cross examination conducted on behalf of respondents, he admitted that rt he was not on visiting terms with the respondents. He also admitted that he had filed two civil suits against respondent Ram Lal etc. He further admitted that no stones had been pelted by the respondents in his presence. He further admitted that earlier also, he appeared as witness in favour of complainant in a case pending before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No.3.
Ghumarwin.
8. PW-3 Smt. Sunita Devi, is the daughter-in-law of the complainant and deposed that on the day of occurrence she along with father-in-law, husband and son were present inside the shop when respondents came on the spot and started uprooting their retaining wall. She further stated that when they tried to stop the respondents, they attacked them with bricks and stones, because of which, she, her father-in-law (complainant) and son Anurag sustained injuries. She further stated that thereafter they went inside their house and closed the shutter of the shop. Upon cross examination, she admitted that she had filed a criminal case ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:08 :::HCHP 5 against respondent Dhani Ram. According to her, all the accused persons were carrying stones.
.
9. PW-4 Sh.Pran Nath is the son of complainant, who made a similar statement to that of PW-3 and upon cross examination, denied the suggestion that he nor his son Anurag were present at home on 22.6.2009. He admitted the suggestion of that no road/passage was constructed by the respondents but volunteered to state that they had up rooted his retaining wall.
rt
10. PW-5 ASI Anant Ram, registered the FIR Ext PW-
5/A on receipt of rukka Ext PW-1/A. PW-6 ASI Kehar singh is the witness of memo Ext PW-1/B. PW-7 HC Ravinder Kumar took into possession copy of interim order dated 27.6.2009 vide memo Ext PW-1/B.
11. PW-8, Inspector Mool Raj is the Investigating Officer, who deposed regarding investigation of the case. He tendered in evidence spot map Ext PW-8/A and photographs of the spot Ext PW-8/B-1 and Ext PW-8/B-2 and CD Ext PW-8/B. In cross-examination, the witness denied the suggestion that the respondents had been falsely implicated by him due to political pressure. However, he admitted that no window pane of the house of the complainant was broken nor were there any marks of stone pelting on the walls of his house.
12 PW-9 Dr. Bharati Ranaut, the then MO, CHC, Bharari has stated that on 22.6.2009 at about 10.20 pm she had medically examined Sunita Devi, Anurag and complainant Kartar ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:08 :::HCHP 6 Nath, who had an alleged history of being beaten up by some people. She further deposed regarding the injuries reported by her .
vide MLCs Ext PW-9/A, Ext PW-9/B and Ext PW-9/C on the aforesaid three persons. In cross-examination, she admitted that the injured were not personally known to her and she further admitted that the injuries mentioned in the MLCs were possible of due to fall.
13. This in entirety is the evidence led by the rt prosecution and it would be noticed that so far as ocular evidence is concerned, no independent eye witness of the alleged occurrence has been examined by the prosecution.
14. PW-1 Kartar Nath is the complainant, PW-3 Sunita is his daughter-in-law and PW-4 Pran Nath is his son and husband of Sunita Devi. As regards PW-2 Madan Lal, he undoubtedly is a neighbour of the complainant and claims to be an eye witness of the alleged occurrence, but his cross examination clearly reveals that he is not in visiting terms with the respondents and has also filed two civil suits against respondent Ram Lal etc.
15. Apart from above, a close scrutiny of the testimony of Kartar Nath, PW-1, Sunita Devi, PW-3 and Madan Lal, PW-2 reveals that they have materially contradicted each other with and the same is also in contradiction with the case set up by the prosecution.
16. As per case of the prosecution, complainant during his statement under Section 154 Cr.PC, informed the police that ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:08 :::HCHP 7 respondents in furtherance of their common object had criminally trespassed into his courtyard and started digging it. He also stated .
that the respondents had started pelting stones on his shop/house and had even given beatings to him and his family members.
However, on a closer scrutiny of the testimony of this witness, it would be revealed that complainant no where had stated that the of accused persons were digging his courtyard, he rather stated that when he was reaching home on the day of occurrence at about rt 7.00 pm, the accused persons started pelting stone at his house and thereby damaged it and criminally intimidated him by threatening to do away with his life and set his house ablaze. This witness has given no details or offered explanation as to when he was beaten up and by whom. He has also not clearly stated that when his family members came out of the house they sustained injuries due to the alleged pelting of stones. However, in the statement under section 154 Cr.PC, complainant did not mention that the respondents had damaged his house and taken away some of his belongings, like the stone meant for washing clothes and one Okhali etc.
17. This version is not supported by the I.O when he states that no damage had been caused to the house of the complainant.
18. At this stage, It may also be noticed that the complainant in his statement under Section 154 Cr.PC did not mention anything regarding threatenings given to him by the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:08 :::HCHP 8 respondents, but while appearing as PW-1, he stated that the accused persons had threatened to do away with his life and set .
his house ablaze.
19. Coming to the testimony of daughter-in-law PW-3 Sunita Devi and the son PW-4 Pran Nath, they in their testimonies, had clearly stated that on the date of occurrence, respondents had of come in front of their house and up rooted the retaining wall, however, they no where stated that the respondents had also dug rt the courtyard, which otherwise was the foundation of the allegations against the respondents. Both these witnesses are conspicuously silent regarding the respondents having damaged their house or having taken their belongings.
20. Further, the complainant PW-1 had claimed that all the respondents had given him beatings by hands and kicks which was not so stated by PW-3 or even PW-4. The only version purforth by PW-3 and PW-4 was that the injuries had been caused because of pelting of stones by the respondents.
21. PW-1 and PW-3 would claim that they were inside the house and were present outside their shop at the time when sustained injuries, but according to PW-4, he, his wife, son and father were present inside the shop when accused came and gave beatings and pelted stones. He has no where stated that he and his family members had come out of the house/shop when injuries were caused to his wife, son and father.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:08 :::HCHP 922. PW-2, Madan Lal, has in his examination-in-chief stated that the respondents were pelting stones at the house of .
the complainant, but during cross-examination he admitted the suggestion that stones were not pelted by the respondents in his presence.
23. It would thus be evidently clear from the testimony of of the witnesses examined by the prosecution more particularly PW 1 to PW-4 that all these witnesses are interested ones as they rt already had civil litigation pending against the respondents. Apart from that, the testimony of the witnesses lacks coherence, consistency and is full of contradictions. Even the injuries allegedly sustained by the accused persons cannot be connected with the alleged incident as the complainant had clearly stated that he was beaten up by hands and kicks by all the 16 respondents, but as per MLCs Ext PW-9/A and 9/B, there was only one abrasion with clotted blood on his right cheek and tenderness on back and chest with slight abrasion. Thus, it would be highly unsafe to rely upon the medical evidence and attribute the injuries reflected therein upon the accused persons.
24. In view of the material contradictions in the evidence led by the prosecution coupled with the enmity between the complainant party and the accused persons, it would not be safe to hold the accused persons guilty of the commission of the alleged offence.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:08 :::HCHP 1025. The learned trial Magistrate has taken pains to discuss both the ocular as also the documentary evidence and .
appreciate the same in accordance with law. As such, I find no infirmity or impropriety much less perversity in the findings rendered by the learned trial Magistrate so as interfere with such findings.
of Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.
rt (Tarlok Singh Chauhan), Judge.
September 15, 2016 (sl) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:08 :::HCHP