State of H.P. vs Sita Lal and Another

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 12.4.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla in Sessions Trial No. 25-S/7 of 1994 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 395, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 13.12.1993 at about 9.30 a.m. PW/4 Jia Lal and Mehar Chand (not examined) went to the house of the complainant Murat Singh, PW/2. They had been deputed by the accused Sita Lal to intercede in the dispute between him and Murat Singh. The grievance of Sita Lal was that Murat Singh had blocked the common path leading to his house. According to PW/2, he asked Jia Lal and Mehar Chand to come inside his house for the discussion but they asked him to go to the spot. Thereafter, all three of them went to the spot. Accused Sita Lal was sitting in his �Verandah�. PW/2 stated that accused Sita Lal had no right of passage in the path in question. Thereafter, Sita Lal came down from his verandah and threatened the complainant with dire consequences. He also threw the grass from the haystack (Sathra). He also started throwing fuel wood at the witness Murat Singh. In the meantime, other accused Anil Kumar and Neelu came to the spot. They also started beating Murat Singh with a danda. Then Gokhru Devi, w/o Sita Lal and Anita Devi, daughter-in-law of Sita Lal came to the spot and started beating Murat Singh. Thereafter, these five accused snatched the watch and Rs. 2000/- which the complainant was carrying. On this basis, an FIR was lodged against the accused persons for having committed the offences detailed here-in-above. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial, the accused have been acquitted. Hence the present appeal by the State.

We have heard Sh.Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General on behalf of the State and Sh.Sunil Mohan Goel, learned Counsel for the accused.

At the outset, we may state that even on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint itself, no case u/s 395, IPC is made out. Section 395 deals with dacoity which has been defined in Section 391, I.P.C to mean an offence where five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit robbery or aid in the commission of such an offence. In the present case, even according to the complainant, the dispute arose because of the passage being blocked. Thereafter, the complainant alongwith two persons who had been requested to mediate in the matter went to the spot. It is thus obvious that none of the accused had any joint intention of robbing the complainant.

The story of the complainant is even otherwise not believable and not supported by the material placed on record. According to the complainant, he was beaten by all the five persons. However, medical certificate Ext.PW1/A proved by doctor A. Banerji, PW/1 shows that complainant had suffered only one minor injury which was only 1cmX0.5cmX0.5cm lacerated wound. No other injury was found nor did the complainant at the time of medical examination complain of any other aches or pains or other injuries caused to him. If the complainant had been beaten by five persons, in the manner as described by him, he would have definitely suffered more serious injuries.

According to the complainant himself, he was accompanied by PW/4 Jia Lal when the occurrence took place. PW/4 stated that when he alongwith Mehar Chand visited the house of complainant, Murat Singh to settle the dispute between accused Sita Lal and complainant Murat Singh, the complainant told them that there was no path and he is not going to allow the path through his abadi to accused Sita Lal. Jia Lal and Mehar Chand then informed Sita Lal about the discussion from the Khalyan of Banu Lal. Then Sita Lal started throwing grass which was kept by Murat Singh on his land and when Murat Singh tried to stop him, there was an exchange of hot words. Other persons also gathered at the spot. A scuffle took place between Sita Lal and Murat Singh. Later, the other accused persons also came there. This witness also stated that when they reached the spot, the fight was already over. He categorically stated in examination-in-chief itself that he did not know about any item of the complainant or his wife being stolen. In cross-examination, he admitted that when they reached the spot, Murat Singh and Sita Lal were fighting with each other and they separated them. He also admitted that he had not seen any dandas or stones in the hand of the accused persons. The statement of this witness contradicts the statement of the complainant and his wife. This witness does not talk about any of the other persons other than Sita Lal beating the accused. Even in respect of Sita Lal all that is said is that Sita Lal and Murat Singh had a scuffle. This scuffle arose due to the complainant blocking the path. There was a dispute between two sides about the existence of the path itself. This independent witness does not say who started the fight. He only states that accused Sita Lal first started throwing the grass to Murat Singh which was lying on his land and then a scuffle took place. Who was the aggressor is not clear. The injuries on the person of the complainant and his wife are very trivial and minor in nature. The genesis of the dispute had been hidden from the Court and the complainant and his wife have not come out with the true version as to how the fight started.

In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that there was any robbery committed by the accused persons. Even as far as the offence of causing hurt is concerned, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that any of the accused persons other than Sita Lal ever attacked the complainant or his wife. Even in respect of Sita Lal, it cannot be said with certainty that it was he who was the aggressor. In a free fight, some injuries can be caused to any person even to the aggressor.

Therefore, the learned Trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. We find no reason to interfere in the Judgment of the learned Trial Court. The appeal being without merit is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged.