AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice R.B. Misra, J.—The present criminal appeal has come up for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in reference to judgment dated 23.12.2006, passed in Sessions trial No. 24 of 2003 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur acquitting the alleged accused/respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 307, 323, 504 read with Section 34 IPC along with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 in FIR No. 143 dated 28.7.2001. The prosecution story, in brief, is that victim Nikka Ram alleged to have assaulted by accused Ashwani Kumar by a sword and was hit by stones pelted by accused Sanjay Kumar. When the accused Ashwani Kumar after alighting from his truck started making noise and hurled stones from outside, which hit the victim Nikka Ram and his son. The accused while abusing has also pelted stones and when victim and his family members including his son Pawan Kumar and daughterin- law Smt. Kashmiri Devi bolted the door from inside, accused Ashwani Kumar had come and broken the window with sword and caused injury to Nikka Ram. After investigation, the accused/respondents were charged for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 prosecution witnesses. The accused/respondents through their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. have denied the prosecution case.
On scrutiny of prosecution witnesses and statement of victim Nikka Ram (PW-1) made u/s 154 Cr.P.C., it appears that the victim has stated that on 27.7.2001 at about 9:00 p.m., accused Ashwani Kumar parked his truck No. HP-24-2288 in front of the house of victim behind an another truck bearing registration No. HPB-1666 and started pelting stones. At that time, Sanjay Kumar, Babu Ram, Munshi Ram, Satya Devi, Surendra Devi, Seema Devi, Raksha Devi and Bimla Devi were accompanying him, who with common motive to assault the victim have entered into the courtyard of victim Nikka Ram. Accused Ashwani Kumar at that time was carrying a sword and rest of the persons were holding ''DANDAS'' and stones. Accused Sanjay Kumar has pelted stones by which his son Pawan Kumar was injured and after hearing the cries, Budhi Ram came to his house and had asked them to go inside. Both the accused persons came to their house and while victim (PW1) was closing the window, accused Ashwani Kumar gave a push to the window with his sword and the sword hit the victim on his chest, as a result of which he suffered injury and became unconscious. After hearing the hue and cry, Jiunu Devi, Shankar Dass and Dropti Devi had also come on the spot.
Whereas as per statement of victim (PW-1), accused Ashwani Kumar after alighting from his truck started making noise and hurled stones on the victim (PW-1) which struck against his head, upon which Budhi Ram had advised him to go his house and accused Sanjay Kumar had also hurled stones from outside which hit on the forehead of PW-1 and his son Pawan Kumar (PW-2) has also sustained injuries because of those hittings. As per testimony of PW-1, when he went inside his house and bolted the door from inside, accused Ashwani Kumar came to his house alongwith sword and pushed the window with sword and he sustained injuries with the sword. PW-1, however, had not stated that accused Ashwani Kumar initially was carrying sword in his hand and has hit him on his chest by sword. As per testimony of PW-1, accused Sanjay Kumar is real nephew of PW-1 and another accused Ashwani Kumar is son of his real niece, namely, Surindera Devi and because of construction of house by Surindera Devi adjacent to the house of PW-1 and by virtue of keeping common courtyard quarrels were going on. PW-1 has also stated that at the time of occurrence only Budhi Singh was present and rest of the people came on the spot after the incident was over. PW-1 as such has made contradictory statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C.
PW-4 Budhi Ram stated to be present on the spot at the time of occurrence, however, he turned hostile. Whereas PW-2 Pawan Kumar son of victim (PW-1) Nikka Ram through his statement has stated that accused/Ashwani Kumar came alongwith his truck and after alighting from the truck when Ashwani Kumar while holding a sword in his hand had hurled and threatened PW-1 that he will be done to death. Accused Sanjay Kumar threw stones upon PW-1. Because of hurling of stones, PW-2 sustained injury on the back of his head and his father PW-1 sustained injury on his forehead. PW-2 has also stated contrary to the testimony of PW-1 that accused Ashwani Kumar has given a sword blow, which caused injury on the chest of PW-1 and on this quarrel Jiunu Devi, Shanker Dass and Daropadi Devi came to the spot. PW-2 has also reiterated the version of PW-1 to the extent that accused Sanjay Kumar has common courtyard and the entire land of accused and the complainant are joint and because of land dispute, the parties were not in talking terms for the last 25 years. However, PW-2 was not aware about the criminal case registered against him.
PW-3 Smt. Kashmiri Devi is the wife of PW-2 and daughter-in-law of PW-1, she has contradicted the testimonies of PW-1 as well as PW-2 by saying that when PW-1 was closing the window, accused Ashwani Kumar had broken the window glasses with his sword. In the meantime, the sharp pointed side of the sword inflicted injuries on the chest of PW-1 and he became unconscious. The testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are contradictory regarding inflicting of injuries upon PW-1. The important aspect is that PW-1 and PW-2 have enmity with the accused, therefore, it cannot be said that there could be any motive of accused/respondents to assault the victim (PW-1).
PW-5 Doctor C.R. Verma though has noted three injuries out of which two injuries were simple. Injury No. 1 is said to be caused by sharp weapon. However, as per opinion of PW-5 if weapon could have been thrust with little more force it could have proved dangerous to life. PW-5 has also stated that injuries No. 2 and 3 were possible by stones. PW-5 has also examined PW-2 and has also noted two injuries. However, in his opinion injury No. 1 could have been caused if a man falls on barbed wire, some pointed object like grill and broken piece of glass and injury No. 2 on the person of PW-2 could have been caused by falling on the hard surface. The medical opinion of PW-5 is, however creating doubt about sustaining of injuries upon PW-1.
PW-6 Smt. Daropadi Devi was stated to have reached on the spot after hearing the cries of PW-2 and has noticed injuries on the person of PW-1.
PW-7 (Prem Lal), Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Nchali Bhater has stated that at about 9:30 p.m. Shri Budhi Ram came to his house and informed him that some scuffle has taken place at the house of victim Nikka Ram. PW-7 alongwith Prem Chand and Rattan Chand, Ward Members of Gram Panchayat went to the place of incident and noticed that Nikka Ram had sustained injury in his chest. PW-7 has however noticed injury on the head of PW-1.
PW-8 Constable Karan Singh, PW-9 Sarwan Singh and PW-10 Prem Chand have entered into the witness box to support the prosecution case in their official capacity. As per testimony of PW-10 (Prem Chand) when he reached on the spot the police was already holding a sword, where he has put his signatures.
PW-11 Shri Rajesh Kumar, Scientific Officer, has stated that chemical report has indicated that the cut mark on the ''Buniyan'' of victim could have been caused by sword and any other pointed object which is bended from the tip. In view of testimony of PW-12 Dr. Gian Thakur, Scientific Officer, the blood on the sword was insufficient for chemical examination, as such the blood on the sword could not be correlated with the blood of PW-1.
PW-13, PW-14 and PW-15 have also entered into the witness box to support the prosecution case in their official capacity. However, their testimonies are not giving substantial support to the prosecution case. Keeping in view the medical report and the medical opinion as well as the statement of victim PW-1, it appears that a serious doubt is created about the manner of occurrence, place of occurrence and manner of injuries inflicted on the person of PW-1 as well as PW-2, keeping in view the inconsistency emanating from the testimonies of PW-1 and the spot witnesses PW-2 and PW-3. As such in our considered view, the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. On analysis of prosecution witnesses and materials on record, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at the finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused/respondents are discharged.