IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. A-668-MA of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 28.09.2010 State of Haryana .... APPLICANT Versus Karam Singh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. G.S. Chahal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for the applicant-State. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. 1. The State of Haryana has filed this application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 10.11.2009, passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, whereby all the eight accused persons, namely Karam Singh, Satab Singh, Pirthi Singh, Munish Kumar, Sushil Kumar, Amit Kumar, Soni and Ravish Kumar (respondents herein) have been acquitted in case FIR No. 94 dated 4.1.2006 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 307, 506 IPC, Police Station Khizrabad. 2. In the present case, it is the case of the prosecution that civil litigation regarding partition of the land was already pending between the complainant party and the accused-respondents party. On 29.9.2006 from 7 AM, it was the turn of complainant Naresh Kumar to have water from canal, therefore, he had gone to irrigate his fields. When he started to irrigate his Crl. Misc. No. A-668-MA of 2010 -2- fields, respondents No.4 to 8, who were already irrigating their fields, started abusing him and tried to assault him, but the complainant managed to escape. It is the further case of the prosecution that on return to his house, the complainant found that one Sharab Singh (who was kept in column No.2 as found innocent during police investigation) and respondents No.1 to 3 were abusing his father Pala Ram and sister-in-law Rajesh. In the meanwhile, respondents No.4 to 8, who had been following the complainant, also arrived there. All the respondents then exhorted that the complainant and his family members be taught a lesson for taking their turn of water. Immediately thereafter, respondent No.1 Karam Singh gave a blow with iron rod which struck Rajesh on the left side of her head and aforesaid Sharab Singh inflicted a stone blow again on the left side of her head, whereas the remaining accused started giving slaps, fists and kick blows to the complainant, Rajesh and Pala Ram. Injured Rajesh was taken to General Hospital, Jagadhri, from where on the next day i.e. on 30.9.2006, she was referred to PGI, Chandigarh and after giving treatment, on 1.10.2006, she was referred back to Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar, but she was taken to S.P. Hospital, Jagadhri. However, after conducting medico legal examination of injured Pala Ram at Primary Health Centre, Khizrabad, he was discharged. On 4.10.2006, statement of the complainant was recorded, on the basis of which the FIR was recorded. 3. After completion of investigation, challan was filed against the respondents-accused and they were charge sheeted for the offences under Crl. Misc. No. A-668-MA of 2010 -3- Sections 148, 323, 307 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 506 IPC, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses. 5. PW.1 Dr. Pardeep Tehlan, who conducted CT Scan on the head of injured Rajesh, proved his report Ex.P1 and CT Scan film Ex.P2. 6. PW.2 Dr. Ashwani Kashyap, who medico legally examined injured Rajesh, proved the MLR Ex.P3 and the opinion Ex.P6, whereby he opined that injury No.1 on the person of Rajesh was dangerous to life. 7. PW.6 ASI Bal Kishan is the Investigating Officer of the case. 8. PW.7 Dr. Sheel Kant Pajni, who medico legally examined injured Pala Ram, proved MLR Ex.P20. 9. PW.9 Naresh Kumar is the complainant and PW.13 Rajesh Rani is the injured. 10. All the remaining witnesses are formal in nature. 11. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the respondents- accused denied all the allegations appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and pleaded false implication in the case. In defence, they examined DW.1 Raj Kumar, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jagadhri, DW.2 Ram Chander, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jagadhri and DW.3 Anil Kumar, SHO, Police Station Khizrabad. 12. The trial court, after considering the evidence and the documents available on the record, came to the conclusion that the Crl. Misc. No. A-668-MA of 2010 -4- prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the respondents-accused beyond doubt and thus acquitted all the accused. 13. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant-State and going through the impugned judgment, we are of the opinion that the instant case is not a fit case, where leave to appeal is to be granted. 14. The trial court, after appreciating the prosecution evidence as well as the defence evidence, has not believed the prosecution version. It has been found that there is inordinate delay of five days in lodging the FIR, which has been used by the complainant to concoct the false version. It has been further held that the genesis of the occurrence has also not been proved. Further, the trial court has observed that in the MLR of injured Rajesh, there is only one injury on the head, whereas according to the prosecution version, respondent No.1 gave a blow with iron rod on the left side of the head of Rajesh and thereafter, Sharab Singh (who has not been challaned) struck a stone blow on the head of Rajesh. Regarding the injury on the head of Rajesh, while referring to the statements of PW.1 Dr. Pardeep Tehlan and PW.14 Dr. Anmol Bhatia, who have stated that injuries of the nature suffered by injured Rajesh could have been caused by fall on hard surface, learned trial court has held that possibility of injured Rajesh having suffered the injuries in that manner cannot be ruled out. It has been further observed that Sharab Singh, who has been attributed a stone blow on the head of injured Rajesh, was kept in column No.2 of the challan and the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., moved by the prosecution during Crl. Misc. No. A-668-MA of 2010 -5- trial to summon him as an additional accused, was got dismissed as not pressed. Thus, the prosecution conceded that Sohrab Singh was not involved in the occurrence. In view of this fact, if one part of the prosecution story is disbelieved, then the entire story will fall. Further, it has been held that no independent witness has been examined to corroborate the version of the complainant. In these circumstances, non-joining of any independent witness by the prosecution assumes significance and it has been rightly held by the trial court that possibility of fabricating the incident and implicating innocent persons on account of previous enmity between the complainant party an the accused party cannot be ruled out. 15. After considering all the aforesaid factors, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the trial court is one of the possible view, which can be taken from the evidence led by the prosecution in the instant case. It cannot be said that the view taken by the trial court, while acquitting the respondents-accused, is totally perverse, which cannot be taken, at all, in the given circumstances. It is settled law that the judgment of acquittal is to be interfered only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and others, (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 53 that the High Court should interfere in the judgment of acquittal only when it finds that the evidence on record clearly and absolutely indicate the guilt of the accused. The High Court should not interfere merely on the basis that from the evidence on record a different view as to the trial Court is possible. Crl. Misc. No. A-668-MA of 2010 -6- 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any ground to grant leave to appeal. 17. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE September 28, 2010 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ndj JUDGE