JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant challenges judgment dated 24.09.2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, acquitting respondent No.2 of charges under Section 323, 325, 307 and 506 of the IPC.

(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment recording the acquittal of respondent No.2, is based upon an erroneous appreciation of the evidence, consideration of factors that are neither germane nor relevant to criminal jurisprudence, and by misreading the deposition of eye -witnesses. The finding of delay, in reporting the matter, is contrary to facts. The occurrence took place on 22.08.2011, the FIR was registered on 24.08.2011. The delay of two days occurred as the appellant was admitted in hospital and the doctor opined that the appellant is unfit to make a statement. The investigating officer filed another application seeking opinion of the doctor and it was only after the appellant was declared fit on 24.08.2011 that his statement was recorded. It is surprising that the trial Court has ignored this aspect while holding that delay in registering the FIR casts a doubt on the story put forth by the prosecution. The observation by the trial Court that there were several eye -witnesses available in the hospital whose statements could have easily been recorded by the investigating officer, is an error committed by the investigating officer. Even otherwise, as police generally wait for the victim of an offence to make a statement and only thereafter record statement of witnesses, the delay has unnecessarily been commented upon. It is further submitted that emphasis laid by the trial Court on the deposition of the doctor that there was no external mark of injury to indicate that the appellant was dragged by the tractor or any crush injury on the person of the appellant, is based upon a misreading of the evidence. Admittedly, the appellant was operated for a fracture. The appellant has deposed, duly supported by eye -witnesses that the respondent drove the tractor over the appellant twice, thereby clearly proving that the respondent intended to kill the appellant and but for providence was saved from certain death. It is further submitted that merely because the appellant was admitted as an accident case, is no ground to raise an inference that the appellant did not drive the tractor over the appellant.

(3.) WE have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgment and are not inclined to accept the arguments raised. The trial Court while acquitting the respondent has recorded clear, cogent and rational reasons.