Crl.Misc.No.379-MA of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 18.11.2008 State of Haryana .....Appellant versus Ashok son of Ram Singh .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. Present : Ms.Ritu Punj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. -.- UMA NATH SINGH, J. This application for leave to appeal with Criminal Appeal preferred by State of Haryana, arises out of a judgment dated 30.4.2008, in Sessions Case No.49 of 2005 under Sections 307/323/325/506 IPC, recording acquittal of accused-respondent herein. This appears from the prosecution case that Sunil Kumar (PW4), brother of injured Anil Kumar (PW5), lodged an FIR stating that on 14.9.2004, he being accompanied by his injured brother and some native boys of his village had gone to Rewari Khera to watch games, in a tractor. In the evening after game was over, while returning in the tractor, accused- Ashok who was also accompanying them indulged in some objectionable activities. Accused Ashok Kumar was forbidden from doing so and finally made to get down by injured Anil Kumar from the tractor which he took as an insult. Both the brothers reached home and at about 6/6.30 p.m., they went to have a round of the standing millet crop in the fields. While going Crl.Misc.No.379-MA of 2008 2 to fields, on the way at a distance of about 2 to 3 killas away from the native village, accused-Ashok, while holding a glass bottle, appeared and stopped injured Anil Kumar. In order to take revenge for his insult of being dropped from tractor, he gave a bottle blow on the face of injured Anil Kumar (PW5), who fell down and thereafter, the accused gave him fist and kick blows. Sunil Kumar, complainant (PW4) rushed to rescue his brother and then the accused ran away from the spot still holding threat that the next time the injured would be done to death. Complainant Sunil Kumar brought his injured brother Anil Kumar to PGIMS, Rohtak. On receiving a medical ruqa, HC Dil Sukh reached the hospital. As injured Anil Kumar was not in a position to give statement, statement of his brother Sunil Kumar (PW4) was recorded. That statement was sent to police station through Constable Jogender and finally a formal FIR (Ex.P3/B) was registered by ASI Jagbir Singh (not examined). HC Dil Sukh investigated the case and prepared a site plan (Ex.P7) and also recorded the statement of injured Anil Kumar on 16.9.2004. He arrested the accused on 18.9.2004. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 323/506 IPC, but when the injury was found to be grievous in nature, the offence under Section 325 IPC was added. Further, after the opinion of Doctor that the injuries were dangerous to life, the offence under Section 307 IPC was also added. Thereafter a challan was laid before the Ilaqa Magistrate and the case was finally committed to the Court of Sessions. On scrutiny of documents, charges under Sections 307, 323, 325 & 506 IPC were framed against accused person. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses, besides placing on records other incriminating materials. Evidence of material witnesses, which need to be considered for Crl.Misc.No.379-MA of 2008 3 the purpose of disposal of this application, are of Sunil Kumar (PW4), who is complainant, and his injured brother Anil Kumar (PW5) apart from Doctor Asha Sehrawat (PW3) and Investigating Officer HC Dil Sukh (PW9). Trial Court has disbelieved their testimonies for various reasons. Dr.Asha Sehrawat (PW3) has not been found to be a truthful witness particularly for the fact that she had conducted the MLR only after the order of SDM. She has also stated that on the first day, injured Anil Kumar was not interested in the M.L.C., and he had told her that the injury received by him was caused in a quarrel after taking liquor. She also stated that as per the information given to her, there was a scuffle between two groups under the influence of liquor. Eye witnesses, complainant Sunil Kumar (PW4) and his brother injured Anil Kumar (PW5), were also not found to be trustworthy. The incident had taken place inside the village fields, which were covered with standing millet crops and, thus, it could not have been possible for witness Sunil Kumar (PW4) to have seen the incident, even though he stated in Court that he had seen this occurrence from a distance of 2 killas. However, learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that it was not possible to see the site of occurrence from such a distance due to the obstruction caused by the fully grown up millet crops. There was no explanation as to why injured Anil Kumar (PW5) did not get himself medically examined when he was brought in hospital on 14.9.2004 itself. As there is absolutely no explanation for that, therefore, there is a doubt as to whether he had actually received the injuries in question at the hands of accused Ashok. May be, he would have received these injuries in the Crl.Misc.No.379-MA of 2008 4 scuffle with some other person who was under the influence of liquor, as mentioned in documents namely Ex.P2/A and Ex.P2/B (ruqa). Moreover, complainant Sunil Kumar (PW4) in his statement to police not not mentioned that he and his brother had gone to Rewari Khera to see Kabaddi match. Whereas, in the Court statement, he has mentioned this fact. The same is the position with injured Anil Kumar (PW5). Thus, we notice a number of improvements in their statements which, if examined in the light of defence taken by accused Ashok Kumar that the complainant party was using their land as a passage which injured Anil Kumar (PW5) has also admitted, prosecution case becomes shrouded with suspicion. That apart, injured Anil Kumar has also admitted that some other persons namely, Banti, Kala, Bijender, Mahender and Tashi, who were accompanying him were under the influence of liquor. Thus, the fact mentioned in ruqa that the injured had suffered the injures in a scuffle with some other person under the influence of liquor, appears to be quite probable. In view of all the aforesaid analysis, the findings recorded by trial Court does not require any interference in this application for leave to appeal. Hon'ble the Apex Court in various judgments on the question of interference against the order of acquittal, time and again has reiterated that if two views are possible, the view taken by trial Court in favour of the accused for recording his acquittal should be accepted as the reasonable and possible view. Some of the judgments on this point 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) AIR 2005 Crl.Misc.No.379-MA of 2008 5 SC 2439 (State of UP versus Gambhir Singh and others). Hence, application for leave to appeal and the accompanying appeal, both, are dismissed being devoid of merits. (UMA NATH SINGH) JUDGE 18-11-2008 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) *mohinder JUDGE