CR.A/499/2010 of STATE Vs RAM RATTAN on 31 December 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA

Cr. Appeal No. 499 of 2010.

Reserved on: 20th December, 2018.

Date of Decision: 31st December, 2018.

State of H.P.

…..Appellant.

Versus

Ram Rattan & others

....Respondents.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the Appellant: Mr. Hemant Vaid and Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Y.S.Thakur and Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Deputy Advocate Generals.

For the Respondents:Mr. Harsh Khanna, Advocate. _______________________________________________________

Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

The instant appeal, stands, directed by theState, against, the pronouncement made by the learnedJudicial Magistrate, 1[st] Class, Kandaghat, District Solan,H.P., upon, Criminal Case No. 1/2 of 2008, whereunder, theaccused/respondents herein stood acquitted.

2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 18.8.2017, at about 10.50 p.m., an intimationreceived from Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Chail thatsome persons have been injured in a quarrel and came tothe hospital. On this information H.C. Rajinder along withother police officials visited the hospital, and, recordedstatement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., of, complainantRajinder Kumar to the effect that he is resident of VillageNagali. Ram Rattan, Om Prakash, Inder Singh and Rameshare also residing in the same village with their families.The afore named persons are inimical towards their family.They used to load seasonal vegetables in the vehicle, butthe above named persons always obstruct them to do so.The afore named persons bringing their vehicles for thelast 8 to 10 days for loading. On 18.8.2007 at about 7.30p.m., in the evening when vehicle came on the road thenhis mother Vidya Devi went to see the vehicle on the road.When his mother did not return after some time, then hisbrother Balwant went to see his mother on the road. RamRattan and his family members caught hold Balwant fromhis throat and started beating him. When his brotherstarted crying then his sister and mother also came on thespot and asked that when they were beating Balwant, on which all these persons started quarreling with them.After some conversation, the accused persons, namely,Ram Ratta, Kanta, Om Prakash, Inder Singh, Ramesh,Ashok Kumar, Madan Lal, Sanjay, Ajay, Vijay, Pankaj, Uma,Sharda, Sunita, Anita and Sheela gave beatings to Vidya,Reena Thakur and Balwant Singh with kick and fist blows.They also pelted stones on them owing to which injurieswere sustained on head and left eye of his person. VidyaDevi sustained injuries on head, and, Balwant sustainedinjuries on his eyes and chest, whereas, Reena sustainedinjuries on her head, and, on other parts of the body. Onhearing their cries, Joginder and Devender came to thespot and they were rescued by them. He along withVidya Devi, Reena and Balwant were taken to the hospitalby Joginder and Devender. On the afore statement of thecomplainant, FIR was registered in the Police Stationconcerned, and, the police investigating the case.

3. On conclusion of the investigation, into theoffences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report,under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wasprepared, and, filed before the learned trial Court.

4. The accused/respondents herein stood charged,by the learned trial Court, for, theirs committing offences, punishable under Sections 147, 149 and 323 of the IPC. Inproof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined11 witnesses. On conclusion of recording, of, theprosecution evidence, the statements of the accused,under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,were, recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein, theaccused claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implicationin the case.

5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, thelearned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favourof the accused/ respondents herein.

6. The appellant herein/State, stands aggrieved, by the findings of acquittal, recorded, by the learned trialCourt. The Additional Advocate General, has, concertedlyand vigorously contended, qua the findings of acquittal,recorded by the learned trial Court, standing not, based ona proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather,theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by it,of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua thefindings of acquittal warranting reversal by this Court, inthe exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs beingreplaced by findings of conviction.

7. On the other hand, the learned counselappearing for the respondents has with considerable forceand vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal,recorded, by the learned trial Court, rather standingbased, on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, ofthe evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating anyinterference, rather theirs meriting vindication.

8. This Court with the able assistance of thelearned counsel on either side, has, with studied care andincision, evaluated the entire evidence on record.

9. Preeminently, the prosecution was enjoined, to,prove the genesis of the prosecution case, encapsulated inthe statement, borne in Ex.PW1/A, statement whereof,stands recorded at the instance of the complainant, who,stepped into the witness box, as PW-1. The testificationrendered on oath by the complainant, is enjoined to makevivid bespeakings, hence bearing absolute concurrence,with all, the recitals borne in Ex.PW1/A. However, in case,therein rather occur, gross embellishments, and,improvements, therefrom, also, hence apparent rifecontradictions therefrom, hence, occur, in the testificationrendered on oath by PW-1, thereupon inferences wouldstand sparked qua (a) the recitals borne in Ex.PW1/A being falsified, (b) and, theirs being hence construed to beinvented or fabricated, (c) and, also qua the testifications,of, the purported ocular witnesses, in purportedcorroboration thereof, also losing their vigour.

10. For determining the afore factum probandum,an allusion to the recitals borne in Ex.PW1/A, and, to thetestification rendered on oath by PW-1, is imperative. InEx.PW1/A, wherein, the genesis of the prosecution case, is,embodied, a narration occurs qua the mother, of, thecomplainant, initially proceeding, towards, the contentiousroad, and, thereafter, after elapse of some time, the,brother of the complainant one Balwant, hence,proceeding to the relevant spot, and, on hearing cries, the,complainant along with his sister, visiting the site ofoccurrence. The afore narrations, borne in Ex.PW1/A,were, enjoined to be testified, with, the utmostcorroboration by PW-1, upon, the latter stepping into thewitness box. However, a perusal, of, the statement,rendered on oath, by PW-1, especially, the, one comprised,in his examination-in-chief, unveil (a)qua echoings beingborne therein, qua, rather his mother, and, brothertogether, visiting the spot, and, his after hearing shrieks,and, cries erupting therefrom, rather hence, visiting the relevant site, of occurrence, alongwith his sister.Obviously, hence, the the afore apparent rifecontradictions, belittle(s), the worth of the narrationsborne in Ex.PW1/A, thereupon, the recitals encapsulated inEx.PW1/A, are construable to be falsified, and, are alsoconstruable to be a sheer invention or concoction, (b) with,a further sequel qua any purported corroboration thereto,as, rendered by the purported testified ocular witnesses tothe occurrence also losing their apt efficacy. More so, withPW-2 in addition to PW-1, hence naming one Joginder, and,one Devender hence being available at the relevant site,for, hence rescuing them, from, the assault perpetrated,upon, the victims, rather also naming one Daya Ram, (b)also adds, to the aura of skepticism hence surrounding thetestification, rendered by PW-1. Furthermore, PW-3 inaddition, to, the afore also adding the name of one Kapil,also, aggravates the aura of skepticism rather engulfingthe genesis of the prosecution case, rendering it to remainnot cogently proven.

11. In addition, though, the complainant, testifiesqua all the victims, being admitted in hospital, for threedays, (a) yet when hence the prosecution narration, is, quaonly Vidya and Reena, being admitted in hospital, and, other persons leaving to their respective abodes, after,receiving treatment, also stains the truth, of, theprosecution version. Cumulatively, hence, all the aforeinter se or intra se improvements or embellishments, interse the version borne in Ex.PW1/A, and, the testification indiscord therewith, rendered by PW-1, (b) and, also all theafore inter se contradictions, inter se, the testificationsrendered by the afore purported ocular witnesses, to, theill-fated occurrence, rather enhances an inference, qua,the genesis of the prosecution case, being both incredible,and, unbelievable.

12. However, the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral, has, contended (a) that with the respectivelydrawn MLCs by PW-7, exhibits whereof, are, borne inEx.PW7/A to Ex.PW7/D, hence being proven by PW-7, and,also with PW-7 in her deposition, borne in her examination-in-chief, making, echoings qua all the injuries, borne in allthe afore MLCs, being, caused by user of blunt weapon, (b)and, with hers, in her cross-examination, conducted by thelearned defence counsel, denying a suggestion qua theinjuries reflected in MLCs, respectively borne in Ex.PW7/Ato Ex.PW7/D, being not causable by fall on on hard surfaceor heap of stones, (c) thereupon, the prosecution version

qua the accused pelting stones, upon, the victims, hencestanding proven. However, the afore submission falters,for want, of, collection of stones, and, also for want of thestones being shown to PW-7, during, the course of herdeposition being recorded. Moreover, the afore omission isgrave, given the purported oozing, of blood, from theinjuries respectively sustained by the victim, purportedlyby pelting of stones, by the accused, upon, the respectivepersons, of, the victims, (d) thereupon, some stains ofblood were enjoined to occur thereon, (e) and, also thepurportedly pelted stones, upon, the person of the victims,were enjoined to remain at the site of occurrence, and,also warranted their collection. Reiteratedly, the aforeomissions also falsify the prosecution versions, and, whenthe collections, of, apposite clothes, as respectively seizedunder memos, borne in Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW2/A, and,Ex.PW3/A rather remained undispatched to the FLSconcerned, for renditions, of an opinion thereon, by theexpert concerned, (f) whereas, upon, the afore endeavourbeing recoursed by the prosecution, firm evidence woulderupt qua the afore items, being smeared with the bloodbelonging, to the blood group of the victims. Sequelly,hence, even the afore omission rather fosters an inference qua the seizure of clothes of the victims, as, made throughEx.PW1/B, Ex.PW2/A, and, Ex.PW3/A not carrying thereon,their blood, and, also hence the prosecution version beingfalsified. .

13. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court,has appraised the entire evidence on record in awholesome and harmonious manner, apart therefrom, theanalysis of the material, on record, by the learned trialcourt, hence, not suffering from any gross perversity orabsurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation ofgermane evidence on record.

14. Consequently, there is no merit in the instantappeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, theimpugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. Allpending applications also stand disposed of. Records besent back forthwith.

(Sureshwar Thakur)Judge

31[st] December, 2018. (jai)