State of H.P. vs Gitinder Kaur and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—State has appealed against the judgment, dated 2.9.2000 of learned trial Court, whereby, Respondents, who were tried for offences under Sections 147, 323, 448 read with Section 149 IPC, have been acquitted.

Case of the prosecution is that on 25.5.1994, around 3.30 P.M., when PW-5 Nalini Kumari, along with her mother, PW-10 Rajinder Kaur, was present in the tea factory, jointly owned by PW-5 Nalini Kumari and the father-in-law of Respondent Gitinder Kaur, all the Respondents, led by Respondent Gitinder Kaur, went there and required Nalini Kumari and her mother to vacate the factory immediately and on their refusal, Nalini Kumari was assaulted, and their belongings were thrown out of the factory premises. One Savitri, a maid servant of Nalini Kumari, reported the matter to PW-6 Subodh Butail, Pradhan, who reached the spot soon thereafter. He saw some articles scattered outside the factory premises. Police was telephonically informed. PW-12, S.I. Balbir Singh, went to the spot and recorded the statement of PW-5 Nalini Kumari, Ex. PW-5/A, on the basis of which, case was formally registered, vide FIR Ex.PW-8/B. PW-5 Nalini Kumari was medically examined. She was found to be having a lacerated wound, measuring 3.2x1x0.8 cm, on the right side of her forehead and also swelling of right thumb.

Substance of accusation was put to the Respondents, when they put in appearance. They pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined Nalini Kumari, her mother Rajinder Kaur, Pradhan of the Panchayat and doctor who conducted the medical examination, namely Dr. K.C. Kalyan, to prove the accusation. Respondents, in their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C., pleaded that father-in-law of Respondent No. 1 Gitinder Kaur, was one of the joint owners of the factory and it was he, who had been managing the factory and the tea estate. Other Respondents were alleged to have been employed by the father-in-law of Respondent Gitinder Kaur, as workers for running the factory. It was denied that Nalini Kumari or her mother, were assaulted. It was stated that a dispute had been going on between the parties, with respect to the tea estate and because of that, false criminal case had been got registered.

Trial Court disbelieved the prosecution version and concluded that the present case was result of civil litigation, going on between the parties, with regard to the tea estate and the tea factory and that a minor quarrel had been blown out of proportions. It placed reliance upon the testimony of father-in-law of Respondent Gitinder Kaur, namely Karanender Singh, who appeared as DW-1.

I have heard learned Assistant Advocate General, as also the counsel, representing the Respondents, and gone through the record.

Testimony of PW-5 Nalini Kumari does not inspire confidence. She testified that she had been dealt danda blows, on her head, by Respondent Shakuntla. In the FIR, however, name of the lady, who dealt danda blow, is written as Sheela. Trial Court has noticed this contradiction, as one of the grounds, for acquitting the Respondents. Learned Assistant Advocate General submits that Sheela is the second name of Respondent Shakuntla and that this fact finds mention in the statement of Nalini Devi, Ex.PW-5/A, recorded u/s 154 Code of Criminal Procedure It is true that in Ex.PW-5/A, signs and words ''alias Sheela'' find mention after the name of Shakuntla, but a bare look at Ex.PW5/A suggests that these signs and words have been interpolated. In the FIR, which was recorded on the basis of Ex.PW-5/A, aforesaid signs and words do not find mention, which fact proves beyond doubt that signs and words in the statement u/s 154 Code of Criminal Procedure Ex.PW-5/A, have been interpolated subsequently, probably to reconcile the earliest version, with the testimony of Nalini Kumari, with regard to the person, who dealt danda blow on her head.

Also, there is enough evidence, including admission by Nalini Kumari, who appeared as PW5 and her mother Rajinder Kaur, who appeared as PW-10, that factory was initially being run by the father-in-law of Respondent Gitinder Kaur and that it had been shut down only a month, prior to the institution of the present case, because of the pendency of the suit. Nalini Kumari as also her mother, stated that they shifted to the factory only a few months, prior to the incident, which fact also indicates that earlier, they were out of possession.

Rajinder Kaur, PW-10 admitted that she had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of father-in-law of Gitinder Kaur, authorizing him to run the tea factory, as also manage the tea garden, on account of her inability to manage the affairs. Nalini''s father-in-law''s mother, Yashodha Devi is recorded as joint owner, to the extent of 2/3rd of the total property. Rajinder Kaur, PW-10 further admits that Gitinder Kaur''s father-in-law is authorized by his mother Yashodha, through an instrument of Power of Attorney, to manage the affairs of the tea factory and the garden.

In view of the above stated position, I do not deem it to be a fit case, calling for interference with the judgment of acquittal. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.