INDRESH KUMAR Vs. RAM PHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals questions the judgment of the High Court whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by one Ramphal (respondent No. 1 herein), an Inspector of Police and acquitted him of the offence punishable under Section 218, IPC. He was also acquitted of the other offences punishable under Sections 342 and 323, IPC. He was convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal wherein as many as seven persons were tried for these offences. His other six co-accused were, however, acquitted by the Trial Court while Inspector Ramphal who is now arrayed as the first respondent, was convicted. This judgment was challenged by him before the High Court. The acquittal of Ramphal from other offences as also the total acquittal of other six accused persons came to be challenged by Indresh Kumar, the original complainant and the appellant herein by way of a criminal revision. The High Court in its common judgment has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 herein and has awarded him the verdict of total acquittal. At the same time, the revision filed by appellant Indresh Kumar was dismissed. Appellant Indresh Kumar now has come up before us challenging the acquittal of all the accused persons including Ramphal (respondent No. 1-accused) who was acquitted by the High Court.

(2.) This case has a long history as well as political overtones. The appellant-complainant Indresh Kumar who was originally examined as PW-8 came to know about the illegal detention of his father Chaman Lal Saraf and his two brothers by the Police of Kaithal. He was ordinarily residing in Jammu where he was working as a full time preacher of an organisation, namely, Rashtriya Swamsewak Sangh. On coming to know about the illegal detention he reached Kaithal on 25.06.1992 and went to the city Police Station, Kaithal where Ramphal (respondent No. 1-accused) was the Station House Officer. He had gone there along with two of his friends. On being asked about the illegal detention of his father and the brothers, Ramphal not only took him in custody but he was beaten up with stick not only by Ramphal but by other Police Officials also (the other six accused persons) on the asking of Ramphal. He was then taken from place to place in a Police jeep. On the next day, after the medical examination, he was produced before the Executive Magistrate where he learnt that a total false case under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. was registered against him on the allegations that he had fought and created ruckus at the residence of one Anil Kumar S/o Prem Chand. He was initially directed to submit a bond of his good behaviour, however, later on the Magistrate dropped the proceedings against him. Appellant Indresh Kumar then met the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal where he filed the complaint against Ramphal (respondent No. 1-accused) and his co-accused. He, thereafter, returned to Jammu. However, he returned to Kaithal on 11.07.1992 and again got himself examined where on his radiological examination, a fracture was found on his left foot.

(3.) On demonstrations by a political party about the alleged police atrocities, the District and Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra was appointed as the inquiry officer to inquire into the offence on 10.07.1992. He submitted his report on 31.07.1992 wherein it was reported that Ramphal (respondent No. 1-accused) and other co-accused were guilty of offences. On the basis of this report, a case was registered at the city Police Station, Kaithal in February, 1996. The case also got reinvestigated. Ultimately, all the accused persons were charged under Sections 367, 420, 468, 471, 218, IPC and 120B, IPC. The case was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal where as many as 22 witnesses came to be examined. However, the Trial Court acquitted six accused persons while convicting respondent Ramphal alone for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 218 and 342, IPC. We have already pointed out that Ramphal's appeal before the High Court was allowed and he was acquitted while the revision filed against his acquittal from the other offences and the total acquittal granted to other six accused persons was dismissed. That is how Indresh Kumar (appellant-complainant) is before us in this appeal.