State of Himachal Pradesh vs Bhumi Singh and Others

Surinder Singh, J.—The instant appeal has been admitted only against Bhumi Singh respondent, against his acquittal passed by the learned trial Court, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 353, 332 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, hence this appeal by the State.

The prosecution case, in brief, can be stated thus. On 4.7.2002, PW3 ASI Tej Ram of Police Post Chirgaon alongwith police officials, PW5 Jia Lal Negi, Pradhan, PW6 Shetu Lal, Member, PW4 Mahavir Singh and PW7 Rattan Sain were present in village Janglikh, to enquire into the complaint of the villagers Diudi and Janglikh villages, with respect to blocking the path by raising a wall in front of the house of respondent Bhumi Singh. Apart from the aforesaid persons, 40-50 villagers were also present on the spot.

ASI Tej Ram started interrogation of respondent Bhumi Singh around 6.30 p.m., regarding narrow-downing the path, but he lost his temper and questioned the authority of the Police Officer and threatened him to see later. Bhumi Singh is alleged to have pushed ASI Tej Ram. He fell down and the other members of the family of Bhumi Singh, namely Savitri Devi, Hari Sain, Rukmani and Kundan Lal scuffled with the Police Officer and abused him. PW1 Constable Dinesh Kumar and PW5 Jia Lal Negi, Pradhan relieved him from the clutches of the respondent and his family members. Tej Ram complainant sustained injuries on his left arm, middle finger and knee and the left hip. He lodged a report against respondent Bhumi Singh and his family members to the effect that he was deterred to discharge his duties as a public servant and for having given beatings.

The complainant was medically examined. He was found having abrasions on the left knee joint and legs and the tenderness of middle finger of the left hand and hip joints. These injuries were found simple in nature and according to the doctor these could be sustained due to fall. However, investigation of the case reveals the offences, aforesaid as such challan was presented in the court for the trial of respondent Bhumi Singh and his family members. They were accordingly charge-sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution led its evidence and the respondents were also examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They took up the defence that the ASI aforesaid was standing on the wall alongwith some villagers and Panchayat members. It was a rainy season. He slipped down from the wall and sustained minor injuries and further that a false case was foisted upon them at the instance of Pradhan, however, no evidence in defence was led. At the end of trial, respondents were acquitted.

State filed the appeal against the accused persons, but leave to appeal was granted only against Bhumi Singh.

Shri A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General argued that there is evidence on record, which was not properly appreciated by the learned trial Court that the respondent Bhumi Singh has given a push to the ASI with a result, he fell down and sustained the injuries, thus he was deterred to discharge his official duties. He also took me through the evidence on record and argued that there are grounds to convert the acquittal of the respondents into conviction.

Contra, Shri B.S. Ranjan, learned Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and pointed out material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and further argued that the tainted version was put-forth by the official witnesses and other witnesses examined in their support as they were under the influence of the police.

I have gone through the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully reappraised the evidence on record.

At the very outset, I would like to say that there is no document on record to show under what authority, the said Police Officer had proceeded to the spot. A report of the departure (Ravangi) from the Police Post is also not placed on the record. This fact is important to support the version of the complainant that he had gone to discharge his official duties, in absence of which it cannot be logically concluded that the said Police Officer was discharging his official duties.

PW1 Constable Dinesh Kumar is stated to have initially rescued the complainant. Although, he stated that there was a complaint with respect to the blockade of path and he alongwith ASI Tej Ram proceeded to the spot, but no such blockade was found on the spot. There was a path which was 2 1/2 feet wide in front of the house of Bhumi Singh, respondent and he stated that respondent started abusing him (ASI). He further stated that Bhumi Singh gave a push to the complainant with the result, he fell down. At that time, PW5 Jia Lal Negi Pradhan, Shetu Lal Member and Mahavir Singh Numberdar etc. were present and they rescued them from the clutches of the respondents. This version of the PW1 is contrary to the FIR because in the FIR, it is specifically mentioned that it was he (PW1 Dinesh Kumar), who had rescued the complainant from the clutches of the respondents.

Further PW3 ASI Tej Ram complainant stated that respondent Bhumi Singh had given a push to him and his family members scuffled with him and he was saved by Jia Lal Negi, Mahavir Singh. Significantly, there is no mention in the FIR that they had rescued him. In cross-examination, he categorically stated that path was not blocked on the spot. It was 2 1/2 feet wide, thus the people could have used it comfortably.

PW5 Jai Lal Negi, Pradhan of the Panchayat was declared hostile, but he stated that the police was enquiring into the matter and were making them to understand, but on this respondent Bhumi Singh got enraged and started arguing with the ASI. He pushed him with a result, he fell down. In cross-examination, he admitted that all the persons were standing on the wall, which was allegedly raised by the respondents. It was 21/2 feet in width. It has also been admitted by him that the respondent was not residing in the house in front of which wall was raised. It has also come in the evidence that about 40-50 persons were assembled on the spot when the police was enquiring from the respondents. When there was no blockade of the road as alleged and respondent aged about 65 years was not residing at the place where the alleged wall was raised, then it did not disclose any cognizable offence. There is also nothing on record that any enquiry was entrusted to him by any competent authority.

Pertinently, PW7 Rattan Sain stated that the villagers had made a complaint against the respondent Bhumi Singh for blockade of path, but it has also come in evidence that the path was not blocked at all. He admitted that the police had caught hold of respondent and was taken away from the spot by ASI and Pradhan etc. He specifically admitted that Bhumi Singh only exchanged the hot words with the ASI, but he did not scuffle with him. He stated that all the villagers at the place of incident wanted to widen the path.

On the critical examination of the aforesaid evidence, it transpires that the villagers intended to exercise the influence through the police to widen the path in question in front of the house of respondent Bhumi Singh and in fact no blockade or hindrance was raised by the respondent at the place of incident. It appears that when the police insisted upon him to allow them to widen the path, he might have felt agitated and sided with the villagers and Pradhan of Gram Panchayat which resulted into this wrath upon him.

On the strength of the aforesaid evidence, it can be said that there are two views deducible from the evidence on record, more specifically, the version given by PW7 Shri Rattan Sain that Bhumi Singh only exchanged the hot words and he did not scuffle with the ASI and also keeping in view the defence raised that it was a rainy season and that the complainant might have slipped down from the wall where he was standing alongwith others and sustained injuries and this has probablised the defence, which cannot be ruled out.

Therefore, on the reappraisal of the evidence on record, I find that the findings of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Court are borne out from the record, which require no interference. As such appeal is without any merit, hence dismissed.

The respondent is discharged from his bail bond entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of this case.

The matter stands accordingly disposed of.

Send down the records.