Crl.Misc.No.451-MA of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Misc.No.451-MA of 2008 Date of decision:25.11.2008 State of Haryana ... Appellant Versus Satyawan @ Kala and others ... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Uma Nath Singh. Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Daya Chaudhary. Present: Ms.Ritu Punj, DAG, Haryana. ... UMA NATH SINGH, J. (ORAL) This Criminal Misc. (application for leave to appeal) and the accompanying appeal arise out of a judgment dated 26.4.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jind, in Sessions Case No.47 of 20.2.2008, recording acquittal of all accused-respondents in an FIR registered under Sections 148/302/323/120-B/149 IPC. It appears that the FIR of this case being No.198 was registered on 8.8.2006, on the statement of complainant Satbir Singh who reported to SI/SHO Babu Ram, PS Julana, that his nephew Vinod, aged about 23-24 years, was running a chemist shop in Aggarsain Market, Julana, and whenever he would visit Julana he used to sit on that shop. One Sukhbir @ Bittu, Jat, a friend of Vinod, also used to visit that shop with other persons like Kala son of Zile Singh, Kala son of Randhir and Shamsher son of Dhup Singh. Thus, they were known to him (complainant) as they used to frequently visit that shop. On 7.8.2006 at about 6 O'clock, when complainant Satbir Singh was sitting along with his nephew Vinod on that shop, the said Sukhbir @ Bittu, a friend of Vinod, came there and told that he had a fight with Kala son of Zile Singh in the inebriated condition on the day before yesterday, as Kala had abused him. Hence, he (Sukhbir) had Crl.Misc.No.451-MA of 2008 2 given him beatings with belt. Being aggrieved, Kala accompanied by another Kala son of Randhir and Shamsher son of Delu had also given him slaps and fist blows when he was going to Julana for his personal work at the boundary of their village. Sukhbir had come to Julana on being separated from them, however, those boys were still after him. Since Sukhbir was to return to his village, he was apprehending that those boys would again assault him. Accordingly, he requested Vinod for help to be carried in later's Jeep to his village. Hence, Vinod and the complainant in order to transport Sukhbir safely to his village started in a jeep for going towards Dorard Fatak from the side of Railway Station. When they had reached near the Railway Station at about 7.00-7.15 PM, at a distance of about one acre from Dorard Fatak, Julana, Kala son of Zile Singh with another Kala and Shamsher, who were carrying wooden dandas in their hands, arrived there. Shamsher gave a lalkara saying that Sukhbir had arrived with his friend and he be taught a lesson for beating Kala the day before yesterday. As a result of lalkara, Kala son of Randhir caused a danda blow on the right shoulder of Sukhbir, which was followed by Kala son of Zile Singh, who also gave a danda blow on Vinod, which hit him on his head. Vinod fell down and on hue and cry raised by the complainant to save injured Vinod and Sukhbir, one Virender son of Gaje Singh came from the direction of Akta Colony. When Virender and the complainant tried to separate them, then Shamsher inflicted a danda blow also on Virender, which had hit him on his hand and he too fell down. Thereafter, Kala son of Randhir caused a danda blow on Vinod, while he was lying on the ground. Thereafter, all the accused persons ran away from the spot with their respective dandas. Virender and Vinod were sent to Medical College, Crl.Misc.No.451-MA of 2008 3 Rohtak, along with Sukhbir, after arranging a private vehicle. Complainant Satbir Singh went to village Rajgarh to give this information and to collect money for medical treatment. When he reached the PGIMS, Rohtak, then he came to know that his nephew Vinod had already succumbed to the injuries. According to him, all the accused persons had caused injuries to the deceased without any provocation. Injured Virender was discharged after giving medical aid and a case under Sections 302/323/120-B read with Section 34 IPC was registered against the accused persons and taken for investigation. During the course of investigation, accused Satyawan, Narender, Shamsher, Vinod, Kaptan and Joginder were arrested. After completion of investigation, a challan was laid against these accused persons and thereafter, a supplementary challan was submitted against accused Jitender, Vikas, Sanjay, Satish and Devender in the Court on 30.3.2007. On the scrutiny of challan and other materials placed by police on record, prima facie, a case under Sections 148, 120-B, 302 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC was found to be made out against all the accused persons, hence, they were charge-sheeted accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses namely (i) Dr.Rohit Kapoor (PW1); (ii) Satbir Singh (PW2), EHC Baljit Singh No.39 (PW3); Ram Mehar (PW4); ASI Brij Lal No.275 (PW5); ASI Hawa Singh (PW6); EHC Ramesh Kumar No.820 (PW7); Dr. Ravi Kant, Lady Medical Officer (PW8); ASI Raj Singh (PW9); Kuldeep Gupta, Draftsman (PW10); Rajbir Singh (PW11); Babu Ram (PW12), and ASI Vijay Singh (PW13). During their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused persons denied all the incriminating materials put across and pleaded that they were falsely implicated in the case. However, they led no evidence in Crl.Misc.No.451-MA of 2008 4 their defence. It appears that the trial Court after carefully scrutiny of the prosecution evidence could not find any cogent evidence to record the conviction of accused persons. On behalf of accused, a defence plea of inordinate delay in lodging the FIR was also taken which was not found to be properly explained. The prosecution withheld the production of important witnesses like the injured ones, who were the only eye witnesses of the occurrence. Testimony of complainant Satbir Singh (PW2) was also not found to be reliable and he was doubted to be a procured and interested witness. Moreover, the medical evidence also did not lend the requisite support to the ocular version. In view of the aforesaid, according to the defence submission, the credibility of the prosecution case itself became doubtful. Thus, the trial Court accepted the defence version to be the probable and acceptable one in comparison with the prosecution case. We have heard learned State counsel. Learned State counsel submitted that this is a case of eye witnesses accounts, which is duly supported by the medical evidence. The trial Court has committed serious errors in law in discarding such evidence while recording the acquittal of accused persons. On a careful scrutiny of the aforesaid submissions and the impugned judgment, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment does not require any interference. Injured witnesses Sukhbir and Vinod were not even produced in the witness box. The incident took place on 7.8.2006 at 7.00 pm, whereas the FIR was lodged with delay on 8.8.2006 at 6.15 am and the special report was sent at 10.00 am on that day. Thus, a delay of 15 hours in sending the report to learned Illaqa Magistrate is also Crl.Misc.No.451-MA of 2008 5 creating doubt about the credibility of the prosecution case. Further, the prosecution has not given any satisfactory explanation for this inordinate delay. Police Station Julana was situated just at a short distance and even the place of learned Illaqa Magistrate was situated only at a distance of 20 kms. During that period, it appears that complainant Satbir Singh (PW2) was introduced and the real genesis of the incident was suppressed. This also appears that deceased Vinod was not carried to Civil Hospital, Julana, immediately, and police was also not informed in time about the occurrence. Moreover, the medical report mentioned the incident to be a road side accident as was informed by the person attending to deceased Vinod. This version appears to be true for the reason that the two injured persons had had taken Vinod to hospital were not produced in the witness box. Moreover, even complainant Satbir Singh was not found to be injured and the trial Court, thus, rightly concluded that in case he had intervened in the matter, he would have certainly sustained some injuries. Even there was no blood stain on his cloths either. Thus, his statement that he had participated in physically carrying the deceased also does not appear to be true. In view of all the aforesaid infirmities in the prosecution case, coupled with the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court holding that if two views are possible, the one taken by the trial Court in favour of the accused for recording his acquittal should be accepted as the reasonable and possible view, we do not find any merits in this application for leave to appeal. Some of the judgments on the point of interference with the orders of acquittal are reported in (i) 2002(3) RCR (Crl.) 861 (Harijana Thirupala and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad); (ii) 2004(2) RCR (Crl.) 940 (Shingara Singh versus State of Haryana and another), and (iii) Crl.Misc.No.451-MA of 2008 6 AIR 2005 SC 2439 (State of UP versus Gambhir Singh and others). Hence, this application for leave to appeal and the accompanying appeal, both, are dismissed as being devoid of merits. ( UMA NATH SINGH ) JUDGE 25.11.2008 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) pk JUDGE