Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Sangat Ram And Others on 6 January, 2009
Author: Jasbir Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.443-DBA of 1994
Date of Decision: 6.01.2009
State of Haryana
Appellant
Versus
Sangat Ram and others
Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Ms.Naveen Malik, Additional Advocate General Haryana
for the appellant in appeal and for the State in Revision Petitions
Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate with Mr.Yogesh Goel, Advocate
for the petitioners in Criminal Revision No.138 of 1994
Mr.H.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioner in
Criminal Revision No.541 of 1994.
.....
Jasbir Singh, J.
State of Haryana has filed Criminal Appeal No.443-DB of 1994 against judgment dated 14.2.1994, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, acquitting the respondents, namely, Sangat Ram, Suraj Mal, Ajit Singh and Ram Pat, of the charges framed against them. Complainant Jai Narain has also filed Criminal Revision No.541 of 1994 laying challenge to the order of acquittal of the above said respondents and also exoneration of Ram Dhari and Pal alias Richhpal from the charges levelled against them under Section 326 IPC. In his revision prayer is to set aside the judgment, Criminal Appeal No.443-DBA of 1994 2 under challenge and to restore judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak on 21.10.1992, convicting and sentencing all the accused named in the FIR. Vide judgment, under challenge, appeal filed by Ram Dhari and Pal alias Richhpal was partly allowed, they were acquitted, so far as charge against them under Section 326 IPC was concerned, however, they were convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC. By filing Criminal Revision No.138 of 1994, both of them have laid challenge to their conviction under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC and prayed for their acquittal.
This order will dispose of all the three cases, referred to above. Process of criminal law was set in motion at the instance of Jai Narain (PW1). It was his allegation that on 11.12.1985, he was way-laid by the six accused, mentioned above and they had caused several injuries to him on his body. Prosecution story, as noticed by the trial Court (Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (JMIC), in para No.2 of judgment dated 16.10.1992, reads thus:-
"Prosecution case is that on 11.12.1985, ASI Shish Ram Incharge, Police Post, Kansala, PS Sampla (PW6), on receiving a V.T. from Police Post, Medical College & Hospital, Rohtak, went to Medical College Hospital, Rohtak and recorded statement Ex.PW1/A of Jai Narain (PW1) at about 8.00 P.M. It was stated by Jai Narain complainant that on 11.12.1985 at about 7.30 A.M. in village Roorkie in the area of PS Sampla, he was coming back to his house after easing himself, when Ram Dhari (accused No.6) gave a lathi blow on his right shoulder Criminal Appeal No.443-DBA of 1994 3 after coming from behind. Then, he gave a lathi blow on the elbow of his right hand. In the meantime, Sangat and Ajit accused also came to the spot armed with lathies. Sangat accused gave a lathi blow below the knee of the left leg of Jai Narain and Ajit accused gave a lathi blow above the knee of his left leg. Suraj Mal and Rampat accused also came armed with lathies. Suraj Mal gave a lathi blow below the knee of his right leg and Rampat accused gave a lathi blow on his right knee. During the process, Jai Narain fell on the ground and all the aforesaid persons continued hitting him. Then, Pal alias Richhpal accused came to the spot armed with jaili and he hit the same thrustwise on the elbow of his right hand. On hearing the hue and cry of Jai Narain, his father namely, Surat Singh (PW2) came from his house and Virender, real brother of Jai Narain, came from behind who was also coming after easing himself, who rescued Jai Narain from the clutches of the accused. It was further alleged by Jai Narain in his statement Ex.PW1/A that the accused party had caused him the injuries because a civil litigation with regard to the immovable properties was going on between the parties. It was further alleged by Jai Narain that Sangat accused is his uncle."
On the basis of above said statement (Ex.PW1/A), made by the complainant Jai Narain, formal FIR (Ex.PW4/A) was recorded against the accused named therein, at 8.50 PM on 11.12.1985 in police station Sampla, district Rohtak. Jai Narain injured was medico-legally examined by Criminal Appeal No.443-DBA of 1994 4 Dr.R.K.Chaudhary (PW5) on 11.12.1985 at 10.30 AM, following injuries were found at his person:-
1. Swelling and tenderness occipitoparietal region I advised X-
ray sculp.
2. There was bleeding from both nostrils.
3. 3x2 cm size red contusion right suprascapular region I advised X-ray chest.
4. There was swelling and deformity with the abnormal movement in upper part of right forearm. I advised X-ray right forearm.
5. 0.3 Ml. size punctured wound back of right forearm 8 cm below olecanon process. There was fresh bleeding.
6. Abrasion 3x1 cm red coloured over back of left forearm.
7. Swelling and tenderness right thigh I advised X-ray.
8. Patient complained of pain and tenderness left thigh.
9. Abrasion over front of left leg in the middle there was swelling and tenderness. I advised X-ray.
10.1x ½ cm. lacerated wound middle of right leg 20 cm. below tebial tuberosity. Fresh bleeding was present advised X- ray."
Injuries No.1 to 3 were kept for surgical opinion by an expert. Injuries Nos.4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 were kept for orthopedic opinion. Injuries Nos.6 and 8 were declared simple. On X-ray, fracture of both bones of the right forearm, tibias of both the legs was detected. After getting orthopedic/surgical opinion, injuries No.4, 5, 9 and 10 were declared Criminal Appeal No.443-DBA of 1994 5 grievous. Investigating officer Shish Ram, SI (PW6), got prepared rough site plan (Ex.PW6/D) on 12.12.1985. During the course of investigation, weapons of offence were recovered and on completion of the investigation, final report was put in Court for trial. All the six accused named in the FIR, were charge sheeted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 326, 148 read with Section 149 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case.
On conclusion of prosecution's evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They claimed innocence and false implication. Four of the accused, namely, Ram Dhari, Pal alias Richhpal, Suraj Mal and Ajit Singh took up the plea of alibi. Remaining two accused, namely, Ram Pat and Sangat took up a defence that Jai Narain complainant had received injuries due to fall from a cycle and they have been named falsely on account of old existing enmity between the parties. They also led evidence in defence.
The trial Court on appraisal of evidence as led by both the parties found all the six accused guilty for commission of offence with which they were charged and they were convicted and sentenced accordingly. All the accused went in appeal and vide the impugned judgment, four of them namely, Sangat Ram, Suraj Mal, Ajit Singh and Ram Pal were acquitted, however, appeal filed by co-accused, namely, Ram Dhari and Pal alias Richhpal was partly allowed by maintaining their conviction under Sections Criminal Appeal No.443-DBA of 1994 6 323 and 325 IPC. Their sentence was also reduced. Hence this appeal and revisions have been filed in this Court.
In Criminal Appeal No.443-DBA of 1994, Ms.Naveen Malik, Additional Advocate General Haryana has vehemently argued that acquittal of the respondents therein was not justified. Case against them was proved on record. The injured and other eye witnesses have deposed against them showing their participation at the time of occurrence. The trial Court has erred in acquitting them. Prayer was made to set aside the judgment to that extent and restore judgment of the trial Court vide which respondents in appeal were convicted and sentenced.
Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by counsel for the respondents. He, by making reference to the evidence on record, argued that acquittal of the respondents in appeal was perfectly justified.
After hearing counsel for the parties, we are convinced that this appeal has no substance and is liable to be dismissed. The appellate Court below has rightly noticed that there was delay in recording the FIR. The Court felt that the intervening period, between the alleged occurrence and recording of an FIR, might have been used to increase number of the accused, who are closely related to each other. In many cases, it has been noted with concern that, there is a tendency on the part of the complainant party to exaggerate number of the accused and implicate all able-bodied members of the family. The same appears to have happened in the present case. The appellate Court further rightly noticed that injuries were mechanically attributed to all the accused named in the FIR which shows that an attempt Criminal Appeal No.443-DBA of 1994 7 has been made to pad the prosecution story. It was rightly noted that the complainant had made major improvements when he deposed before the trial Judge. Non-joining of independent witnesses, who admittedly were available at the spot, was also taken as a circumstance in favour of the accused. It was further noticed by the trial Court that previous dispute, if any, was with Surat Singh and Virender Singh father and brother of the injured respectively, however, at the time of alleged occurrence, they were not touched by the assailants. Taking note of distance between the place of occurrence and house of Surat Singh, trial Court had rightly held that it was not possible for the above said witness to hear the shrieks from such a long distance as has been mentioned in the FIR. By taking note of above said facts, the appellate Court below has observed as under:-
"It is under these circumstances and because of these reasons that I am of the view that while recording the names of the culprits, the injured had exaggerated and so did his father and brother. Out of the six accused, Sangat is a person of 70 years of age, Ajit apart from being a teacher residing at Rohtak, is handicapped man, who cannot even walk without the help of a lathi, Surajmal is another accused of the age of 50 years and employed at village Karontha as a teacher. Karontha village is admittedly on the other side of Rohtak than ,the side of village Rurki, where the occurrence had taken place. He had brought two witnesses DW1 and DW2, who stated that Surajmal was present in the Government School, Karontha on the date of occurrence at 9.00 a.m. The distance between Karontha to Criminal Appeal No.443-DBA of 1994 8 Rohtak was told to be 10 to 12 kilometers and another distance of 18 to 20 kilometers therefrom Rohtak to Rurki. It was, therefore, improbable for this accused to have reached the school in Karontha at 9.00 a.m. or 9.30 a.m. after committing the crime at 7.30 a.m. at Rurki. The other accused Rampat is also an old man of 65 years. The present of these four accused and their participation in the crime is doubtful because of their ages and because of their peculiar situations apart from the fact that no specific injury was attributed to these four accused by the injured while deposing as PW1, though he had so deposed in the first information to the police at Ex.PW1/A. PW2 Surat Singh also did not detail any specific injury against these persons. Similarly, PW3 Virender Singh had not attributed individual injuries to these four persons. They had simply sufficed to state that all the accused had caused injuries to Jai Narain. This statement apart from being vague and indefinite is unreliable to pinpoint the presence of these accused at the spot. Considering the over all circumstances, I am of the considered view that the participation of Sangat. Ajit, Surajmal and Rampat accused in the commission of the crime is very much doubtful and they are entitled to the benefit thereof. All these four accused are therefore, hereby acquitted of the charges levelled against them."
Defence version given by some of the accused has rightly been accepted by the appellate Court. Counsel for the State has failed to show any Criminal Appeal No.443-DBA of 1994 9 misreading of evidence on record, which may necessitate interference by us in the judgment under challenge.
Counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.138 of 1994 has assailed judgment under challenge by stating that the appellate Court below has wrongly declined benefit of doubt to the petitioners. He further argued that grounds, which have been taken in favour of the other four accused should have also been noticed and read in favour of the petitioners in above said revision petition.
After hearing Mr.Goel, we feel that argument raised is liable to be rejected. If we read statement of the injured Jai Narain made before the police and in Court, it becomes apparently clear that accusation against Ram Dhari and Pal alias Richhpal, the petitioners was correct. While convicting them for commission of offences under Sections 323 and 325 IPC, the appellate Court below has observed as under:-
"However, there is a definite case against Ram Dhari and Richhpal alias Palla accsued, even if the statement of injured alone is taken into account. The participation of Ramdhari and Richhpal and their having caused injuries to Jai Narain is proved beyond any shadow of doubt. It is in the statement of Jai Narain that Ramdhari had caused not only the first two blows on his right shoulder and right hand but had given other lathi blows when he had fallen down. Similarly, his statement that Richhpal alias Palla had caused him Jelli injury from the prong side, is a definite statement and is corroborated by the medical evidence. I do not find any infirmity between the medical Criminal Appeal No.443-DBA of 1994 10 evidence and the ocular testimony on this account. The argument of learned defence counsel was that since the prosecution has failed to bring independent evidence despite availability and had sufficed with interested witnesses, an adverse inference should be drawn. He relied upon AIR 1978 S.C. 59 Bir Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 1973 Crl.L.J.1430 Dhaneswar Raipitam and others vs. State in this context. As already observed in the foregoing paragraphs, this fact of non-joining independent witnesses is material only to the extent to sort out the real culprits from the accused, who are in the category of doubt. This has already been done. There is no infirmity in the statement of the injured regarding the participation of these two accused Ramdhari and Richhpal. Both of them had caused injuries to Jai Narain with lathi and Jelli. Injury no.4, 9 and 10 were found to be grievous bearing fractures of both the bones of the right arm and tibias of both the legs. There is no deviation in the medical evidence read with the statement of the injured."
Contention of counsel for the complainant that the trial Court was not justified in exonerating the petitioners for charges under Section 326 IPC is also liable to be rejected. In that regard, it has been observed as under
by the appellate Court below:-
Injury No.5, a punctured wound was the only injury caused by a sharp-edged weapon, that is a Jelli, which could attract section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. This arm was Criminal Appeal No.443-DBA of 1994 11 possessed by Palla alias Richhpal. This wound was found on the right forearm. According to the statement in the FIR, a Jelli blow was caused on the right arm of Jai Narain near elbow. The statement of Jai Narain before the court in this regard is silent in the examination-in-chief. Injury No.4, where fractures of both bones of right forearm were detected by Dr.P.K.Jain PW7, seems to have been joined with the injury no.5, presuming that the fractures to both bones of right forearm were caused with the Jelli blow. It is exactly not so. The sites of injuries No.4 and 5 as shown in the diagrams at Ex.PW5/B, at the back of the M.L.R. PW5/A shows that these two injuries are at different places and there is a variance, may be very small, between the sites of the two injuries. Though both the injuries no.4 and 5 were kept under observation as per the statement of Dr.R.K.Chaudhary PW5 and were declared as grievous but there is no definite evidence that the site of injuries No.4 and 5 was the same or that the Jelli blow could have also caused fracture to both the bones of right arm of Jai Narain. The basis as to why injury no.5 was declared to be grievous have also not been given by the doctor. It seems that it was thought that both injuries no.5 and that at no.4 were caused in a single blow by Jelli. According to the statement of the injured, Ram Dhari had given him a lathi blow on his right hand near elbow when he had raised his hands in his defence and injury no.4 could be the result of only that blow. The fracture of the bones of his right Criminal Appeal No.443-DBA of 1994 12 arm could, therefore, be the result of that lathi blow alone which was caused by Ram Dhari and which has been described as injury no.4 in the medical evidence. There is no possibility nor even a probability for injury no.5 to have resulted in to a fracture of both bones of right arm. This injury no.5 was the only injury, which according to the doctor, was caused by sharp pointed edged weapon and since I am of the considered view that this injury could not have resulted in to causing the fractures of bones of right arm, therefore, this injury cannot be considered to be grievous in nature."
The appellate Court has analysed in a very careful manner, the receipt of injury in question and then came to a conclusion that the fracture was the result of lathi blow and was not caused with Jelli which is a pointed sharp edged weapon. Counsel for the complainant has failed to show us any infirmity in the order passed which may necessitate interference by us at his instance.
In view of facts mentioned above, we dismiss Criminal Appeal No.443-DBA of 1994 filed by the State.
In view of reasons given by us in earlier part of this order, it is not possible for us to interfere so far as conviction of Ram Dhari and Pal alias Richhpal for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC is concerned. During arguments, it was brought to our notice that at the time of alleged occurrence Ram Dhari was a student and after his conviction he has settled in life. Pal alias Richhpal was also an agriculturist. Both of them were not previous accused. Criminal Appeal No.443-DBA of 1994 13
Purpose of criminal law is to bring discipline, peace and harmony in the society and also to give an opportunity to an erring individual to reform himself. It has not been brought to our notice that after their conviction in this case, above named two convicts have indulged in any other criminal activity. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh versus State(Delhi Admn.), 2001 (9) Supreme Court Cases 161 have observed that in such like cases reformative approach is required to be adopted and opportunity must be afforded to an accused to reform himself.
In view of facts mentioned above, we upheld conviction of the appellants, set aside their sentence of imprisonment and they are ordered to be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of six months. They shall maintain peace and harmony and shall not indulge themselves in any similar offence again. To redress grievance of the complainant in this case and by taking note of ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 372, we direct both the petitioners in Criminal Revision No.138 of 1994 to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- (one half each), by way of compensation to the complainant Jai Narain. Amount be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which their revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
In view of facts mentioned above, revision petition filed by the complainant bearing Criminal Revision No.541 of 1994 also stands disposed of.
(Jasbir Singh)
Judge
Criminal Appeal No.443-DBA of 1994 14
6.01.2009 (Jora Singh)
gk Judge