STATE OF HARYANA Vs. HIRDA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagadhri dated 14-7-1986, whereby Hirda Ram accused his son Ishwar Singh, Nasib Singh and his sons Ved Parkash and Mohinder Singh accused were acquitted of the charge under Sections 148, 149 and 325 of the India, Penal Code.

(2.) IN brief facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that about 15 days prior to 2.1.1981, Raj Kumar complainant (hereinafter referred to as the complainant repaired the Buggi of Nasib Singh and his other co accused who however, did not pay the repair charges. On 2.1.1981, the complainant went to Nasib Singh accused to get the payment of the repair charges. Nasib Singh accused and his sons refused to pay any such amount. Rather the accused threw a challenge to the complainant that they would not pay the repair charges and the complainant may do whatever he liked. The complainant came back and told his father. The latter assured the former that he himself would talk to Nasib Singh. On the same day, at about 10 P.M. the complainant after finishing his work was going back to his village. As he reached near the village all the accused came together and caught hold of the complainant. Ishwar Singh accused gave a blow with iron rod on the leg of the complainant. Mohinder Singh accused gave a blow with iron rod on the wrist of the right arm of the complainant. The complainant was made to lie on the ground by Ved Pal and Ranjit Singh. Mohinder Singh and Nasib Singh gave him blows with iron rod whereas Nasib Singh and Hirda Ram gave him fist blows. The alarm raised by the complainant attracted his father Shiv Ram and Ranbir Singh who reached the spot and rescued the complainant. The accused then went away from the spot along with their respective weapons. This complainant was got medically examined. The complainant accompanied by his father went to the Police Station and lodged the first information report. After completion of the investigation the accused were challaned tried and acquitted by the trial Magistrate. Aggrieved against the order of acquittal the State has filed the present appeal.

(3.) ON behalf of the State, it was mainly submitted that the learned trial Court has grossly erred in not property evaluating the testimony of the complainant, who had imprint of injuries on his person and the medical evidence fully corroborates the version given by the complainant. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has also erred in not relying upon the testimony of Shiv Ram and Ranbir Singh PWs, who came to the spot and rescued the complainant from the clutches of the accused. It is night time occurrence and the question of identity of the accused assumes greater significance in view of the fact that Raj Kumar injured admitted in his cross examination that it was dark night. It is significant to note that the injured had not given either the source of light or the manner in which he identified the culprits at the time he received injuries at their hands. Mere fact that the accused were co-villagers or were fully known to the complainant would not be sufficient to establish the identity of the culprits as far as the main occurrence is concerned. The injured had not even mentioned that he identified the accused by their voice. According to Ranbir Singh PW as soon as the accused saw the light of the motor cycle they ran away. Shiv Ram PW2 who is the father of the injured too stated that when he reached the spot he saw his son lying fallen in the light of the motor cycle. Neither Shiv Ram nor Ranbir Singh had seen the main occurrence. The identity of the culprits or the part attributed to Individual accused as deposed to by the complaint is highly doubtful.