State of H.P. vs Hem Singh and Others

R.B. Misra, J.—It is brought to our notice that accused-respondent No. 1, namely Hem Singh, has died, therefore, the present criminal appeal in respect of respondents-accused No. 1 is abated and criminal appeal in respect of respondent-accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is to be adjudicated upon.

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 has been granted in reference to judgment dated 29.5.1999, passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, H.P., in Police Challan No. 67-I/96, under Sections 326 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, acquitting the alleged accused/respondents.

The prosecution case is that on 17.10.1995, complainant, Thakur Dass, his brother Mohan Singh and accused had gone to Tehsil Office, Mandi to attend the hearing of a case. After attending the same, they were going back to their home and when they reached near the old bus stand, Mandi, then the accused persons met the complainant and his brother there and started abusing them. The accused also threw some remarks about the court case on the complainant and his brother, and immediately attacked them. They started giving fist blows to the complainant Thakur Dass, and his brother Mohan Singh. In the process one of the accused Narain Singh gave teeth bite in the ear of the complainant Thakur Dass and his ear started bleeding. The accused persons had given beatings to Mohan Singh, brother of the complainant also. They rescued from the accused by one Home Guard Jawan (Constable) who was on duty nearby and other Shop Keepers. The accused while going from the spot had also threatened to do away with the lives of the complainant and his brother. They reported the matter to the police vide rapat Ex.PW.6/A, on which their medical examination was conducted vide MLC Ex.PW.3/A and Ex.PW.3/B. The present case was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.PW.7/B. The police visited the spot and prepared site plan Ex.PW.7/A and after completing the investigation, the police challaned the accused for the offences under Sections 326 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

After investigation, the accused were arrested and charged for the aforesaid offences. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 prosecution witnesses. Whereas, the accused through their statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., have shown their innocence and denied the prosecution case.

On the scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we notice that accused-respondents had filed a partition suit against the complainant and his brother regarding their joint land which was decided in favour of the accused on 17.10.1995. In that respect, the complainant and his brother keeping grudge against the accused-respondents and in that sequence complainant and his brother started abusing the accused-respondents and attacked them near old bus-stand. Complainant Thakur Dass, had caught hold of accused No. 3, Narain Singh from his testicles and when he did not leave him, then in self defence he gave teeth bite in his ear in order to save his life. We have also noticed that both the parties were scuffling with each other because of the Court case and for his self-defence accused No. 3 had no option but to save himself from the complainant, and therefore, grievous injuries were caused to the complainant.

We have gone through the impugned order, prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we are of the considered view that learned trial Court has rightly analyzed that in the present case the complainant and his brother were upset because of decision of the Court case against them and the complainant out of that grudge started scuffling with the accused-respondents and in the process he might have caught hold of accused No. 3, from his testicles and in self-defence he had given teeth bite to save his life.

On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we notice that the conclusion derived by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of prosecution witnesses that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, is legally correct. In our considered view also, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the accused and there is no scope of interference in the impugned order. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.

The bail bonds furnished by the accused/respondents are hereby discharged.