State of H.P. vs Hazari Lal and Others

Surinder Singh, J.—Respondents were tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 323 Indian Penal Code in case FIR No. 488 of 2003 registered in Police Station Una, District Una, H.P. The state felt aggrieved against the judgment of acquittal, as such filed the instant appeal.

In short, prosecution story can be stated thus. On 5th August, 2003, at about 3 p.m., complainant Harpal Singh while returning, after seeing off his friend Bharti, at the Bus Stand was way-laid by the respondents and pelted bottles upon him, one of which hit his head. PW4 Ashwani Kumar and PW7 Sanjeev Kumar relieved him from the clutches of the respondents. On getting information, Police reached the spot, recorded the statement of the complainant Ext. PW2/A u/s 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complainant was got medically examined. Police prepared the site plan, took into possession the broken pieces of the bottles and after completing the investigation, presented the challan against the respondents in the court for their trial.

Respondents were charge sheeted for the offences aforesaid. They abjured the guilt and claimed trial.

To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and respondents were also examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their case was denial simplicitor.

No evidence in defence was led and at the end of the trial they were acquitted on the point of identification and material contradictions.

I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellant and have carefully gone through her record.

Injured PW2 Harpal Singh although testified having made his statement Ext. PW2/A to the police with respect to the incident wherein he had only named five accused whereas in the instant case there are seven accused. Pertinently, in his cross examination, he admitted that when he made the statement to the police he was not knowing the names of any of the assailants as also stated by him in the examination-in-chief. He specifically stated that he did not know as to who had pelted the bottles upon him which caused injuries to him. Even PW3 Mohinder Kumar the another witness only named four persons Sanjeev Kumar, Suraj, Hazaari lal alias Ladi, and Deepak who were accompanied by 3-4 other persons who allegedly pelted bottles on the complainant. But he also admitted in the cross-examination that he did not see anybody pelting bottles on the complainant. Thus, both the above witnesses have materially contradicted themselves qua the incident and were not certain about the identification of the assailants.

Further PW4 Ashwani Kumar supplied the names of Sanju, Deepu, Vishal Kumar, Suraj and Hazari Lal alias Ladi having given beatings to the complainant and pelting of bottles but no mention has been made with respect to two other accused. His testimony is also not worth inspiring confidence. Thus, I find that the prosecution witnesses have made dilatory statements.

In view of the above material contradictions, in my opinion, learned trial Court rightly gave the benefit of doubt to the respondents. Therefore, in these circumstances leave to appeal cannot be granted, hence petition is rejected.