Crl. Appeal No. 202-DBA of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Appeal No. 202-DBA of 2000 Date of Decision : May 12, 2008. State of Haryana .... Appellant Vs. Jagsir Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. P.S.Sullar, DAG, Haryana for the appellant. Mr. D.K.Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. D.V.Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. Mr. D.N.Ganeriwala, Advocate for the complainant. * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. : This is appeal by State of Haryana impugning judgment dated 13.08.1998 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, thereby acquitting all the six respondents. The prosecution case is that on 23.05.1991, complainant Girdawar Singh was waiting for some vehicle at Bus Stand, Chormar for Crl. Appeal No. 202-DBA of 2000 2 going to his village Jandwala. Shiv Raj Singh and Modan Singh came on a scooter. One gypsy came from behind them. Manjit Singh-respondent was driving the said gypsy and all other respondents were also there in the gypsy. Manjit Singh intentionally hit the gypsy in the scooter of Shiv Raj Singh and Modan Singh, who fell down. Sita Singh-respondent inflicted gandasi blow to Modan Singh. Manjit Singh accused inflicted gandasa blow to Modan Singh. Sohan Singh accused gave gandasa blow to Shiv Raj Singh. Ajaib Singh accused inflicted lathi blow to Shiv Raj Singh, who fled away being followed by Jagsir Singh accused, who inflicted lathi blows to Shiv Raj Singh from behind, but Shiv Raj Singh succeeded in running away raising alarm. The complainant also raised alarm. Jawala Singh accused, who was holding a gun, kept on raising lalkara. The complainant went away to Village Chormar out of fear. Modan Singh was shifted to Primary Health Center, Odhan. Shiv Raj Singh was also brought there. Girdawar Singh complainant made statement to the police, on the basis of which FIR was registered. After investigation, the respondents were sent for trial. Charge under Sections 148, 307, 326 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the respondents. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Dr. O.P.Chananiya (PW-1) stated about medical examination of both the injured Modan Singh and Shiv Raj Singh finding 29 and 20 injuries respectively on their persons. All injuries of Modan Singh were caused by blunt weapon, whereas some injuries of Shiv Raj Singh were caused by sharp weapon and the remaining by blunt weapon. Intimation was sent to the police. This witness also stated that injury no. 18 of Shiv Raj Singh was declared grievous on the basis of X-Ray Report, whereas his other injuries as well as all injuries of Modan Singh were simple. Manjit Singh Patwari Crl. Appeal No. 202-DBA of 2000 3 (PW-2) prepared site plan. Harbhajan Singh – Motor Mechanic (PW-3) mechanically tested the scooter of the injured. ASI Ram Niwas (PW-4) partly investigated the case and arrested accused Manjit Singh and seized the aforesaid gypsy bearing registration No.PB 13 – 6892 from him vide Memo Ex.P-K. Girdawar Singh as PW-5 and Shiv Raj Singh injured as PW-6 have both broadly stated according to the prosecution version. Modan Singh injured prosecution witness was given up as unnecessary and as he was suffering from mental disorder. ASI Ram Phal (PW-7) stated about investigation of the case conducted by him. The respondents in their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the prosecution version and claimed to be innocent. They alleged that the complainant party suffered injuries in some accident and the respondents were falsely implicated on account of enmity. The respondents examined one Bhoop Singh (DW-1) in defence. He stated that the scooter of Shiv Raj Singh and Modan Singh was hit by some gypsy, which was driven away after the accident. Shiv Raj Singh and Modan Singh suffered injuries in the said hit and run accident. Respondents were not in the said gypsy. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide impugned judgment dated 13.08.1998, acquitted all the respondents giving them benefit of doubt. Feeling aggrieved, the State has preferred this appeal. The learned trial court observed that Modan Singh injured has been withheld from the witness box. It was also observed that Girdawar Singh stated that the scooter of the injured came from link road to main road and the gypsy hit the scooter from behind. Shiv Raj Singh stated that the gypsy got entangled in the scooter and dragged them up to 40-50 karams, when they fell down. The learned trial court observed that injuries suffered by both the scooterists were on account of accident. It was also observed by Crl. Appeal No. 202-DBA of 2000 4 the trial court that it is not the prosecution case that the respondents were already waiting for the arrival of the scooterists and in causing the accident, except Manjit Singh, other respondents or occupants of the gypsy had no role to play. It was also observed that it was a sudden accident and therefore, question of unlawful assembly does not arise. Consequently, neither offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code was made out nor Section 149 IPC was attracted. Injuries suffered in the accident could not be attributed to other occupants of the gypsy except its driver. It was also observed that all injuries of Modan Singh were simple and superficial in nature and injuries of Shiv Raj Singh, except injury no.18, were also simple and superficial. Sand particles were also found in the injuries of Modan Singh. The learned trial court found it improbable that so many assailants armed with various weapons would cause only simple and superficial injuries. On the other hand, abrasions found on the persons of the injured were caused due to dragging of the scooter by the gypsy. The trial court also observed that the accused used the weapons from reverse or blunt side and it rules out their intention of committing murder. The witnesses also made improvements in their statements in Court over their statements made before police. One accused was allegedly armed with gun, but did not use the same. Learned trial court also found that the medical evidence was not consistent with the ocular account of the occurrence. The complainant also did not take the injured Modan Singh to hospital and rather thought it appropriate to flee away. Modan Singh was taken to hospital in some bus of Haryana Roadways, but neither the driver nor conductor nor any passenger of the bus came forward to lodge report with the police. Girdawar Singh – complainant also had some enmity with respondents. Shiv Raj Singh injured was also interested witness. Investigating Officer Ram Phal also stated that during investigation, persons Crl. Appeal No. 202-DBA of 2000 5 from the locality were joined and they told that it was a case of pure and simple accident. The FIR also reached the Magistrate after five days. No independent witness was joined to support the prosecution case, although independent witnesses were available near the spot being Bus Stand of the village. There are also residential houses on both sides of the place of occurrence. Bhoop Singh (DW-1) has also stated that it was a case of hit and run accident. The gypsy seized from respondent Manjit Singh was also not mechanically tested. For all these reasons, the learned trial court has acquitted the respondents giving them benefit of doubt. Learned State counsel has failed to convince us as to how the aforesaid reasons are not sufficient to create doubt about the prosecution case. The aforesaid reasons cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable. We cannot be oblivious to the fact that this is a State appeal against judgment of acquittal. The trial court has taken a reasonable view on appreciation of evidence and the impugned judgment of acquittal cannot be reversed merely because of a different view is also possible. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ( L.N.MITTAL ) JUDGE May 12, 2008 ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) monika JUDGE