CRM No. 64166-M of 2006 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh CRM No. 64166-M of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.11.2009 Desh Raj ..... Petitioner vs State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. Ritu Punj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent no. 1. Mr. T. S. Sangha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate, for respondents no. 2 to 5. Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner, who is elder brother of deceased Govind Ram, in the present petition has prayed for quashing of impugned order dated 19.12.2003 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon, and judgment dated 31.8.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon whereby revision filed by him was also dismissed. The brief facts of the case as has been noticed in the complaint, annexed as Annexure P-1, are that the complainant and his uncle Balram and his sons Satpal, Ranbir and Satbir (accused-respondents) have common water pipeline in the agricultural land for irrigation. It was alleged that a quarrel took place on 6.12.2001 between Govind Ram and the accused-respondents in the presence of Hem Raj. Satpal accused had beaten up Govind Ram. He was harassed and mentally and physically tortured to such an extent that he brought Sulfas tablets and consumed them. He was brought to the house by the complainant and thereafter taken to Diamond Private Clinic at Palwal in Maruti Van of Jagbir. Smt. Satwati wife of Govind Ram and his son Hem Raj also accompanied them. When Govind Ram gained some consciousness in the hospital, he disclosed that due to physical and mental torture caused by the accused-respondents, he had consumed poison. Govind Ram died in the hospital due to consumption of poison on 9.12.2001. After the death of Govind Ram, police recorded the statements of Lamberdar Mangal Singh and Sarpanch Sohan Lal. It is alleged that as they were CRM No. 64166-M of 2006 -2- inimical towards the complainant party, they had not got recorded the true facts to the police. Statements of the complainant, Smt. Satwati wife and Hem Raj son of the deceased were not recorded by the police. Post-mortem was conducted on 10.12.2001. All the proceedings were conducted by the police in connivance with the Lambardar Mangal Singh and Sarpanch Sohan Lal. They had stated to the police that Govind Ram had consumed poison due to the harassment caused by the accused-respondents but their statements were not recorded by the police. When the police of Police Station Sohna did not take any action against the accused- respondents, the complainant moved an application before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon. The said application was forwarded to the SHO, Police Station Sohna, but no action was taken by the police, which resulted into the filing of the complaint on 4.2.2002. After recording of preliminary evidence, the trial court dismissed the complaint. The revision filed by the complainant was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. Aggrieved against the aforesaid orders of the court below, the petitioner filed the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the courts below have not appreciated the evidence led by the petitioner and wrongly dismissed the complaint as well as the revision. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused-respondents submitted that as there was no truth in the complaint, the courts below have rightly dismissed the complaint as well as the revision filed by the complainant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book. From the reading of the complaint itself it is evident that story given by the complainant is an afterthought. It has been said in the complaint by the complainant that he brought Govind Ram to the house and thereafter took to Diamond Private Clinic at Palwal in Maruti Van of Jagbir. Both son and wife of deceased also accompanied him. The deceased Govind Ram gained some consciousness in the hospital and disclosed that due to physical and mental torture caused by the accused-respondents, he consumed poison. But when Jagbir Singh appeared in the court as PW1 he stated that Gobind Ram had gained some consciousness on the way to the hospital and stated that the accused-respondents have insulted him due to which he consumed poison. This improvement is clearly an afterthought which has demolished the case of the complainant. A driver carrying a person who had consumed poisonous substance could listen the talks of persons sitting in the car/van does not inspire confidence. If the version of this CRM No. 64166-M of 2006 -3- witness is taken as true then there is no reason coming on record as to why they did not lodge complaint on the same day with the police and withheld the same. The version of the complainant given by him while appearing as PW2 does not inspire confidence. His deceased brother was beaten by the accused- respondents on 6.12.2001 but he has not lodged any complaint with the police or with the panchayat. Admittedly the deceased also consumed poisonous substance on 6.12.2001 and he expired on 9.12.2001 but neither they reported the matter to the police nor it is the case of the petitioner that information was given to the police but the same was not recorded. From these facts, it is clear that the complainant had concocted the story only to implicate the accused-respondents. Statement of PW3 Hem Raj son of the deceased is also on the same lines. He also stated that his father had gained consciousness on the way to the hospital and disclosed that the accused persons are responsible for his death. He also stated that the accused persons also used to beat his father over a dispute of water pipeline. But he has not explained why he did not lodge complaint on 6.12.2001 and earlier also when they had given beatings to his father. This concocted story put forth by the complainant has rightly been discarded by the courts below while dismissing the complaint as well as the revision. In view of the findings recorded by the courts below, I do not find any reason to interfere in the present petition. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 10.11.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge