Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpal Singh Palli vs State Of Punjab And Others on 25 January, 2013
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No. A-951-MA of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 25.1.2013
Harpal Singh Palli
... Applicant
Versus
State of Punjab and Others
... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh Present: Mr. Harinder Pal Singh Ishar, Advocate for the applicant.
Jasbir Singh, Judge Respondents No.2 to 7 along with one Deepak Kumar (Proclaimed Offender) were made to face trial in FIR No. 102 dated 10.5.2008, Police Station City Mansa, for commission of offences under Sections 307, 323, 341, 352, 332, 186, 148 and 149 IPC. It was an allegation against them that on 9.5.2008 they formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and caused injuries to the applicant and one Head Constable Rajpal Singh. Vide judgment dated 6.10.2012, respondents No.2 to 5 were convicted for commission of offences under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 etc. and sentenced accordingly, whereas respondents No.6 and 7 were acquitted of the charges framed against them.
The complainant has filed this application under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file an appeal against the above judgment. Criminal Misc. No. A-951-MA of 2012 (O&M) 2
The trial Judge has noted following facts regarding case of the prosecution:-
"that on 09.05.2008 ASI Narsi Ram along with other police officials on government vehicle No. PB-31C-9346 with driver Ramesh Kumar was ready to go for patrolling. Noise of quarrel in front of the Police Station was heard. ASI Narsi Ram reached at the spot and separated both the parties. The persons present there were caught with their weapons. Harpal Singh alias Pali son of Naranjan Singh, caste Darji, resident of Ward No. 8, Mansa got recorded his statement. He made the statement that he was former Municipal Commissioner. His wife Paramjit Kaur was Municipal Commissioner. Ram Kumar Turkia and his sons started putting pressure upon him sometime prior to the elections. They also beat him and his supporters. Cases were also registered against them in that regard. On the previous day i.e. 08.05.2008 he had come from Bathinda Jail after his release in a case registered under Section 307 IPC as per orders of the Hon'ble High Court. He along with his cousin Bhagwant Singh son of Mohinder Singh was going for some domestic work. When they reached near the flour mill on the Lalluana Road, then from the other side Deepak Kumar and Kukku sons of Ram Kumar Turkia, Labh Singh son of Sukhdev Singh came ahead and stopped him. They said that he had come out from Jail but they would not allow him to live in Criminal Misc. No. A-951-MA of 2012 (O&M) 3 Mansa and they would kill him. They started hurling filthy abuses at him. They, finding opportunity, safely came from there. In order to submit complaint, he along with his cousins Bhagwant Singh son of Mohinder Singh and Binder Singh son of Mohinder Singh residents of Ward No. 8, Mansa was going to Police Station. When they reached in front of the seeds shop of Pandit near the Police Station then from the other side, suddenly Deepak Kumar son of Ram Kumar Turkia armed with blunt Dah, Kukku son of Ram Kumar Turkia armed with a small iron Dah, Labh Sigh son of Sukhdev Singh resident of Ward No.8, Mansa armed with iron rod, Ramesh Kumar son of Kulwant resident of Ward No.8, Mansa armed with handle of spade, Beera son of Sukhdev Singh armed with base-ball bat, Ram Kumar Turkia son of Bhana Ram and Dhanpat Rai alias Ghutra son of Bhana Ram encircled them. Ram Kumar Turkia started raising lalkaras that he should not be allowed to reach Police Station unharmed. Deepak Kumar gave a blow with blunt Dah at him with an intention to kill him, but he reiterated. They were giving blows at him and he was saving him and was raising alarm. On hearing his roula, police officials of Police Station, City Mansa came at the spot. They saved him. Binder Singh suffered injuries in the occurrence. HC Rajpal suffered injury on his right arm from the Dah of Deepak Kumar while saving them."Criminal Misc. No. A-951-MA of 2012 (O&M) 4
It is on record that the Investigating Officer arrested respondents No.2 to 5 and Deepak Kumar at the spot, whereas it is stated that respondents No.6 and 7 fled away from the place of occurrence. It is further case of the prosecution that occurrence was seen by Bhagwant Singh and Binder Singh, cousins of the applicant. Investigating Officer Assistant Sub Inspector Narsi Ram (PW.3) sent ruqa to the Police Station, whereupon above FIR was recorded against the respondents/accused on 10.5.2008. The Investigating Officer took into possession Medico- legal Report of Binder Singh. The offending material was taken into possession against recovery memos. The Investigating Officer also recorded statements of the witnesses and on completion of investigation, final report was put in Court. Copies of the documents were supplied to the respondents/accused, as per norms. Vide order dated 16.4.2010, case was committed to the competent Court for trial. The respondents/accused along with Deepak Kumar were charge sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution produced six witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. Accused Deepak Kumar was declared Proclaimed Offender on 8.2.2012. The prosecution evidence was closed by order on 14.3.2012. Statements of all the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating evidence, appearing against the accused, was put to them, which they denied, claimed innocence and false implication. Some of the respondents/accused gave counter version to that of the prosecution. It was their case that the applicant and the police officials slapped Ram Criminal Misc. No. A-951-MA of 2012 (O&M) 5 Kumar Turkia, when protested, a false case was registered against them. They also led evidence in defence.
The trial Judge, on appraisal of evidence, found respondents No.2 to 5 guilty for commission of some of the offences for which they were charged, however, qua offences under Sections 307, 332, 353 and 186 IPC they were acquitted, whereas respondents No.6 and 7 were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
After hearing counsel for the applicant and on perusal of the paper book, we are satisfied that the trial Judge has appreciated the evidence in a proper manner. It was case of the prosecution that the respondents/accused had caused injuries to Head Constable Rajpal Singh when he was acting in discharge of his duty. The trial Judge, taking note of the entries made in the report dated 9.5.2008, came to a conclusion that the said official was on leave on the date of occurrence. In that regard, it was observed as under:-
"19. From the copy of DDR Ex.DW-1/P1 HC Rajpal No. 319 was on leave on 09.05.2008. There is nothing on the file that he had returned from leave in the evening. So, the prosecution has failed to prove that HC Rajpal was on duty at the time of occurrence. On the other hand, there was no bar for HC Rajpal to be present in the Police Station at that time although he was on leave. HC Rajpal also suffered injuries and he had no enmity with the accused and there was no occasion for him to falsely implicate the accused. So presence of HC Rajpal at that time cannot be doubted. The prosecution Criminal Misc. No. A-951-MA of 2012 (O&M) 6 has failed to prove that HC Rajpal was discharging his duty being public servant at that time so provisions of Sections 332, 186, 353 are not attracted in the instant case."
By noting the injuries on the person of applicant and Head Constable Rajpal Singh, it was rightly opined that all the injuries were simple in nature. As per the statement made by Dr. Karamjit Singh (PW.5), those were superficial injuries. On examination of the medical evidence on record, the trial Judge rightly came to a conclusion that no offence has been made out against the respondents/accused. In that regard, it was observed as under:-
"20. There were four injuries on the person of Harpal Singh PW-1. All the injuries were found to be with blunt weapon and simple in nature. Two injuries were found on the person of HC Rajpal. Those injuries were found simple in nature with sharp edged weapon. Dr.Karamjit Singh PW-5 stated that all the injuries were superficial in nature. No doubt, intention is to be gathered from the circumstances, but in the case in hand as per medico-legal report, Ex.PW-5/12, the injuries on the person of Harpal Singh at right temporal region and neck were simple abrasions. Third injury was on the right elbow which was also abrasion and fourth injury was on the left leg which is a swelling. As per medico-legal report Ex.PW- 5/11 injuries on the person of HC Rajpal were on finger and elbow. Same were not on the vital part of the body. From the evidence, it cannot be said that accused had intention to kill Criminal Misc. No. A-951-MA of 2012 (O&M) 7 Harpal Singh."
After analyzing evidence on record, it was observed that respondents No.6 and 7 were not arrested on the spot. Qua those respondents, it was noticed that the prosecution has failed to prove their presence at the spot beyond reasonable doubt. Exonerating them of the charges framed against them, it was opined by the trial Court that both the above accused/respondents appear to have been involved because they are closely related to Deepak Kumar (Proclaimed Offender). Taking note of the medical evidence on record and deposition made by the witnesses, this Court feels that acquittal of respondents No.6 and 7 was justified and further acquittal of other respondents for commission of offences under Section 307 etc. was also correct. The view taken by the trial Court is perfectly justified, as per evidence on record.
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 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) 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 Criminal Misc. No. A-951-MA of 2012 (O&M) 8 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."
Similarly, in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 and in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, it was held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused has to be adopted by the Court.
In Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011(9) SCC 479, decided on September 5, 2011, the Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
"An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed."
Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, (2012) 1 SCC 602, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"7. A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence of granting freedom to the accused.
Criminal Misc. No. A-951-MA of 2012 (O&M) 9
This Court has taken a consistent view that unless the
judgment in appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably
erroneous or a view which could not have been
taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping
in view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this
Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of
acquittal.
8. The penal laws in India are primarily based upon certain fundamental procedural values, which are right to fair trial and presumption of innocence. A person is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty and once held to be not guilty of a criminal charge, he enjoys the benefit of such presumption which could be interfered with only for valid and proper reasons. An appeal against acquittal has always been differentiated from a normal appeal against conviction. Wherever there is perversity of facts and/or law appearing in the judgment, the appellate court would be within its jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, but otherwise such interference is not called for."
Thereafter, in the above case a large number of judgments were discussed and then it was opined as under:-
"10. There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion Criminal Misc. No. A-951-MA of 2012 (O&M) 10 of this Court is that there is no substantial difference between an appeal against conviction and an appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the High Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had its grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. Thus, this fine distinction has to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The golden rule is that the Court is obliged and it will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice, where interference is imperative and the ends of justice so require and it is essential to appease the judicial conscience."
Counsel for the applicant has failed to indicate any misreading of evidence by the trial Court, which may necessitate interference by this Court.
Dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge (Inderjit Singh) Judge January 25, 2013 "DK"