State Of H.P. vs V & Anr.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 08.08.2014, passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, HP. (for short, learned JJB), vide which the respondents (juveniles before learned JJB) were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned JJB for convenience).

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police presented a charge-sheet before the learned JJB against the juveniles for the commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant Pritam Chand (PW-4) had set up a stall of Jalebi in Kachhihari fair; Sher Singh (PW-14) came to the informant at about 06.30 p.m. and said that the informant's son Vipin Chand was stabbed. The informant went to the spot and found that Vipin Chand was holding his stomach, which was bleeding. The victim was taken to the hospital, from where he was referred to Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. Vipin Chand revealed on inquiry that the juveniles V-1, V-2 and a third person had stabbed him. The victim became unconscious. The medical officer declared the victim to be dead. The matter was reported to the police. An entry mark ‘X’ was recorded in the Police Station. Inspector Sanjeev Chauhan (PW-11) went to the hospital. He recorded the informant's statement (Ext.PW8/A) and sent it to the police station, where FIR (Ext.PW11/B) was registered. The inquest on the dead body was conducted, and the reports (Ext. PW11/A to Ext.PW11/B) were prepared. The photographs of the dead body (Ext. PW11/E to Ext. PW11/G) were taken. Dr Harjinder Singh Sohar (PW-6) conducted the postmortem examination and found that the death occurred because of an ante-mortem stab injury. The report (Ext.PW6/A) was issued. The site plan (Ext.PW11/H) was prepared. The photographs of the spot (Ext. PW11/J to Ext. PW11/K) were taken. The blood-stained stone and soil were seized vide memo (Ext. PW1/A), after putting them in a polythene packet and a cloth parcel. The parcel was sealed with seal ‘T’. Seal impression was taken on a separate piece of cloth, and the seal was handed over to Mast Ram after use. Juvenile ‘V-1’ made a statement (Ext. PW1/B), and the police recovered a Rambi, which was used for stabbing. The sketch of the Rambi (Ext. PW11/N) was prepared. It was put in a cloth parcel, and the parcel was sealed. Juvenile 'V-2' produced his T-shirt, which was stained with blood. It was seized vide memo (Ext. PW1/C). It was put in a cloth parcel, and the parcel was sealed with seal ‘O’. Site plan of the place of recovery (Ext.11/N) was prepared. Juvenile V-1 produced one pair of pants stained with blood, which was seized vide memo (Ext. PW8/D). It was put in a cloth parcel, and the parcel was sealed. Accused Sanjay also produced one blood-stained safari suit, which was seized vide memo (Ext. PW1/E), and it was put in a cloth parcel. The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version. The certificates of the age of the juveniles were obtained. The Aks Sajra of the place of incident (Ext.PW9/A) and Jamabandi (Ext. PW9/B) were seized. The case property was sent to the FSL, and the report of analysis was received. Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Learned JJB.

Learned JJB put the notice of accusation to the juveniles for the commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution examined 15 witnesses to prove its case. Mast Ram (PW1) and Amar Chand (PW5) witnessed the recoveries. Om Prakash (PW2) and Vijay Kumar (PW12) witnessed the incident. Vinod Kumar (PW3) did not support the prosecution version. Pritam Chand (PW4) is the father of the victim. Dr Harjinder Singh (PW6) conducted the postmortem examination. HC Ramesh Chand (PW7) carried the case property. HC Suresh Kumar (PW8) signed the FIR. HC Balwant (PW9) was working as MHC, with whom the case property was deposited. Pratap Singh (PW10) issued Aks Sajra and a copy of Jamabandi. HHC Mast Ram (PW10) carried the case property to FSL, Junga. Sanjeev Chauhan (PW11) investigated the matter. Madan Kumar (PW13) produced the record. Sher Singh (PW14) found the victim lying injured. Rajesh Sharma (PW15) examined the injured initially.

The juveniles, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), denied the prosecution case in its entirety. They claimed that they were falsely implicated by the prosecution. Rambi was planted against them. They did not produce any evidence in their defence.

Learned JJB held that the victim was initially treated by the Medical Officer. No history was revealed by him. The statement made by Pritam Chand was not satisfactory. There were contradictions in the statements stated to have been made by the deceased, which made it difficult to rely upon them. The disclosure statement was not proved as per the law. The testimony of Vijay Kumar was not satisfactory. He had not identified the juveniles before the board. Om Prakash had not disclosed the name of the juveniles before the Additional Sessions Court. There was no satisfactory evidence against the juveniles. Hence, learned JJB acquitted them.

Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by learned JJB, the State has filed the present revision asserting that learned JJB erred in relying upon the certified copies of the statements recorded before learned Additional Sessions Judge and ignoring the statements of witnesses recorded on oath before the learned JJB. The inquiry conducted before learned JJB was an independent inquiry, and the evidence led before learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have been used in it. Pritam Chand specifically stated that the names of juveniles were disclosed by the deceased. Om Prakash (PW2) also corroborated this version. Therefore, it was prayed that the present revision be allowed and the JJB be directed to conduct further enquiry.

I have heard Mr Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the petitioner/State and Mr Ashwani Pathak, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Devraj, learned counsel for the respondent/accused.

Mr Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the petitioner/State, submitted that learned JJB erred in acquitting the accused. Reliance was wrongly placed upon the statements recorded before Learned Additional Sessions Court. The inquiry conducted by JJB was an independent inquiry and the material placed before learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have been used to discard the prosecution case. Therefore, he prayed that the present revision be allowed and the order passed by learned JJB be set aside.

Mr Ashwani Pathak, learned Senior Advocate, for the respondent-accused submitted that learned JJB had taken a reasonable view while acquitting the accused and this Court should not interfere with a reasonable view of the learned JJB. Hence, he prayed that the present revision be dismissed.

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

The present revision has been filed against an order of acquitting the juveniles. It was laid down by the Gauhati High Court in Subhas Das v. State of Assam, 2016 SCC OnLine Gau 749, that the High Court can hear a revision against an order of acquittal; however, it cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction. It was observed: -

Om Prakash (PW-2) stated that he and Vijay Kumar were talking to each other on 18.03.2004, at Kachhihari Bridge. Two persons came to the spot. Sanjay Kumar and the juvenile also came to the spot. Juvenile V1 inflicted a blow by means of a sharp-edged weapon on the stomach of Vipin. The juveniles went away from the spot. He admitted in his cross-examination that he had not mentioned the names of the juveniles and other accused to the police. He and Vijay Kumar were at a distance of 5-7 kilometres from the spot. He knew Vijay Kumar because he was a conductor with him. The police had not identified the juveniles. He and Vinod carried the injured to the hospital. He volunteered to say that the father of the victim was with him.

His admission in the cross-examination that he had not disclosed the names of juveniles and other accused to the police in his statement recorded by the police will make his statement in the Court doubtful that he had seen the juveniles inflicting injury to the victim. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2024) 3 SCC 164: (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 126: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 17 that the prosecution cannot prove a fact that was not told to the investigating officer during the investigation. It was observed at page 176

Pritam Chand (PW4) stated that he was told that the victim was lying on the spot. He arranged for the jeep, and he took the victim to the hospital with his nephew. He has nowhere mentioned that Om Prakash or Vinod Kumar had accompanied him to the hospital.

Vinod Kumar (PW-3) stated that he and the informant were present in the shop when it was disclosed that Vipin was stabbed; he went to the spot, and Vipin was lying on the spot. He was permitted to be cross-examined, and he admitted that Vipin had disclosed that he was stabbed by the son of Birbal and another juvenile had caught hold of him. He stated in his cross-examination that he came to know about the incident at about 06.30 p.m. - 07:00 p.m.

This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution, which means that the prosecution does not consider him worthy of credence. He disclosed that Vipin had revealed the name of the son of Birbal and two other persons. He admitted that he had told the Court that his shop was located at a distance of half a kilometre, which makes it difficult to believe that he had reached the spot within time. Further, he stated that he was with the father of the victim. However, Pritam Chand (PW-4) has nowhere stated that Vinod Kumar was with him in the shop or that anything was disclosed by Vipin on the spot; rather, Pritam Chand (PW-4) stated that Vipin revealed, while he was being transported to Dharamshala, that he was stabbed by V1, V2 and could not disclose the name of the third person. He admitted in his cross-examination that Vipin had disclosed on the way that Sanjay had stabbed him. This admission makes his testimony in the examination-in-chief suspect that the names of V1 and V2 were revealed by the victim.

Dr Rajesh Sharma (PW-15) examined the victim on 18.03.2004 at 07.15 p.m. He issued the report (Ext. PW15/A). He found that the patient was conscious, but he was bleeding profusely. He admitted in his cross-examination that he had not recorded the statement of the victim during the examination. Learned JJB had rightly held that the Medical Officer was the first person to whom the incident could have been revealed, but the fact that no incident was revealed to him would make it doubtful that the victim was able to reveal the incident to any person.

Vijay Kumar (PW12) stated that he and driver Bhalla were standing near Dhaba at Kachhihari. He saw four persons quarrelling with each other. The two caught hold of one person, and the third one inflicted a blow by means of a sharp-edged weapon. The boys ran away after seeing him; one of the boys was known as Ranga. However, his name was not known to him. He could not identify them, and he did not know their names. He was permitted to be cross-examined, and he denied that V1, V2 and Sanjay Kumar were the assailants. He stated in cross-examination by learned counsel for the defence that he had seen the juvenile for the first time in the Court. 20. Therefore, the testimony of this witness does not corroborate the prosecution version that the juvenile and another person had stabbed the victim.

There was no other evidence on record; hence, the learned JJB had taken a reasonable view while acquitting the accused, which cannot be interfered with while exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

No other point was urged.

In view of the above, the present revision fails, and the same is dismissed.

In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], the juveniles are directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/-each with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court/learned Trial Court, within four weeks, which shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the juveniles on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

A copy of this judgment, along with the records of the learned JJB, be sent back forthwith.