IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.313 of 2008 Date of decision: January 27, 2009 Krishan Lal ….. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ….. Respondents Present: Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. The present revision petition has been filed by Krishan Lal (petitioner) against the order dated 15.10.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri whereby the respondents No.2 to 6 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 148, 323 and 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short). The case of the prosecution is that Sher Singh made a statement (Ex.PN) on 18.7.2004 which is to the effect that he was in possession of a ‘bara’ (plot) which belonged to Lala Krishan Kumar of Jagadhri. The same measured about 100 sq. yards. At about 9.00 a.m. on 18.7.2004, Sher Singh along with his son Krishan Lal (petitioner) had gone to the ‘bara’ (plot). There they saw Karnail Singh (respondent No.3), Mehar Lal (respondent No.4) and one person namely Kukka (learned counsel has been unable to explain as to which of the respondents’ name is Kukka or to whom it relates) were trying to dig foundations in the ‘bara’ (plot). Sher Singh told Crl. R. No. 313 of 2008 them that the property belonged to Lala (i.e. Lala Krishan Kumar) and since the complainant was in possession, the said persons namely Karnail Singh (respondent No.3), Mehar Lal (respondent No.4) and Kukka had no business to enter the land. On this Mehar Lal and Kukka it is alleged got enraged and attacked Sher Singh and Krishan Lal (petitioner) with the ‘kassis’ that they were holding. Krishan Lal (petitioner) received a direct blow on his head. Both raised their hands for saving themselves and they received injuries on their head and hands. They raised a noise which attracted Omi and Roni who rescued them. The accused then escaped with their weapons. Both the injured were taken to Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar by Omi and Roni. The son of Sher Singh namely Krishan Lal (petitioner) was reported by the doctor to be not fit for making his statement. The statement of Krishan Lal (petitioner) was, thereafter recorded on 22.7.2004 i.e. four days after the incident that had occurred on 18.7.2004. It was stated by Krishan Lal (petitioner) in his statement that on 18.7.2004 at about 9.00 a.m., he was returning from his duty from Poly Plastic Factory, Yamuna Nagar and he had reached near the plot in dispute, which was in his possession. At the said plot, the persons belonging to the other party i.e. the accused were asserting their possession. When he reached near his house in the street, he was way laid by the accused who came at the place of the incident on a motorcycle. The persons who came on the motorcycle were, however, not named by Krishan Lal (petitioner). Karnail Singh (respondent No.3) it was alleged had caught hold of Krishan Lal (petitioner) and gave a ‘kassi’ blow on his head and he became unconscious. Thereafter, Dhani Ram (respondent No.2), Pradeep and Ravi (respondent No.5) gave lathi blows on his shoulders. On the basis of the said statement of Krishan Lal, FIR was registered on 22.7.2004. The case 2 Crl. R. No. 313 of 2008 was not registered on the statement of Sher Singh that he made on 18.7.2004. Initially the case was registered for the offence other than that under Section 307 IPC. During investigation, at some later stage, opinion of the doctor was obtained with regard to the injury on the head of Krishan Lal (petitioner). It was opined by the doctor to be dangerous to life. Accordingly, Section 307 IPC was added. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri charged the accused-respondents for having committed the offences under Sections 148, 323 and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses. The statements of the accused-respondents in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC – for short) were recorded. It was pleaded by them that they were falsely implicated. Dhani Ram (respondent No.2) stated that he wanted to lead evidence in defence while the remaining accused- respondents stated that they did not want to lead any evidence in their defence. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record noticed that there were glaring and fatal contradictions and defects in the case of the prosecution; besides, there was delay in recording the FIR. The statements of the two injured namely Sher Singh and his son Krishan Lal were noticed. Sher Singh in his statement did not mention the presence of Dhani Ram (respondent No.2) and Ravi (respondent No.5). However, Krishan Lal son of Sher Singh gave an entirely different version of the occurrence. He stated that he alone was assaulted when he was returning from duty. He also stated that he had been surrounded by the accused in the street near his house and some accused 3 Crl. R. No. 313 of 2008 had come on a motorcycle. The learned trial Court noticed that Krishan Lal had used the words “Motorcycle Par Aaya”. The word ‘Aaya’ it was observed connotes a single person which may have been referred for Karnail Singh (respondent No.3) because in the next sentence it was stated that Karnail Singh (respondent No.3) caught hold of him and gave him a ‘kassi’ blow. Besides, Krishan Lal named one of the assailants as Pradeep who was not an accused in the present case. Krishan Lal (petitioner) did not mention the presence of his father Sher Singh at any time. It was also noticed that in the evidence, the presence of Dropti who is the sister of Sher Singh and Rani wife of Kishori Lal was also shown. The injured witnesses appeared in the witness box as PW11 and PW12 and stated that Dropti (sister of Sher Singh) and Rani (wife of Kishori Lal) were there. Besides, Sher Singh had also named Jagjit and Ramesh etc. Sher Singh had stuck to his version that the accused were trying to dig foundations in the ‘bara’ (plot) and after heated exchange of words, he (Sher Singh) and his son (Krishan Lal) were attacked. In the statement (Ex.PN) Sher Singh stated that he along with his son had gone to the ‘bara’ (plot). However, while deposing in court it was stated by Sher Singh that his son (Krishan Lal) came a little later. Krishan Lal (petitioner) son of Sher Singh, however, did not state that his father (Sher Singh) was present. While deposing in Court Krishan Lal stated that when he was returning from his factory after night duty, he was attacked by the accused persons, however, he did not state that his father was present. He then stated that Roni, Omi the mother of Krishan Lal i.e. wife of Sher Singh and his paternal aunt Dropti came there. After that it was stated by Krishan Lal that he and his father (Sher Singh) were taken to the hospital. He made a passing statement to the effect that Pradeep gave a lathi blow on the shoulder of his father. However, at the same time he also took the stand 4 Crl. R. No. 313 of 2008 that his father was also not there. It was noticed that according to Krishan Lal, his father Sher Singh received a blow on his shoulder whereas according to Sher Singh himself, he had received an injury on his head. It was also noticed that one of the accused namely Deepak (respondent No.6), besides Dhani Ram (respondent No.2), Karnail Singh (respondent No.3), Mehar Lal (respondent No.4) and Ravi Kant (respondent No.5) whereas the witnesses had named Pradeep as being amongst the assailants. It had no where come on record that Deepak (respondent No.6) and Pradeep were the same person or that Pradeep is the son of Dhani Ram (respondent No.2). The medical evidence on record was held to be giving rise to a lot of suspicion and the police it seemed had made undue efforts for that. Roni, who was alleged to be present at the time of the incident, did not support the prosecution case and he merely stated that some fight had taken place but he was not there. He was accordingly declared hostile. He (Roni) had stated that he found Krishan Lal (petitioner) lying unconscious near his house and the mother of Krishan Lal asked him to take him to the hospital. He further stated that Sher Singh too was injured who was taken to the hospital by other boys but he did not know as to who were the other boys. According to Sher Singh, however, both the injured were taken to the hospital by Omi and Roni. Even as regards the injury suffered by Krishan Lal on his head was observed could not be caused by a ‘kassi’. The other injuries as per medical evidence could be self suffered. A major defect in the prosecution case, it was observed, was that the FIR was not registered on the statement of Sher Singh on 18.7.2004 but was registered later on the statement of Krishan Lal (petitioner) and the delay in this regard had not been explained; besides manipulations in the meantime could not be ruled out. The evidence on record, it was held did not inspire any confidence. 5 Crl. R. No. 313 of 2008 In view of the glaring defects and discrepancies in the evidence that has been led by the prosecution, the conclusions reached at by the learned trial Court in acquitting the respondents are just and sound which do not warrant any interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The view taken by the learned Court below is neither perverse nor unreasonable. In terms of the certificate dated 26.11.2007 from the office of Advocate General, Haryana, no proposal had been received from the District Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar for filing an appeal against the order dated 11.10.2007 whereby the respondents No. 2 to 6 had been acquitted. Therefore, the State has also not filed an appeal against the acquittal of the respondents. In the afore-noticed facts and circumstances, the revision petition is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Crl. Revision petition is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE January 27, 2009 amit 6