RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been directed against judgment dated 9.3.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal whereby the accused (respondents No. 2 and 3) have been acquitted of the offence charged against them in criminal trial pertaining to FIR No. 507 dated 22.6.1999 registered in Police Station, City Karnal for offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Raghbir Singh, complainant (petitioner) got recorded his statement dated 5.6.1999 that on 4.6.1999 at about 7.30 p.m., he came to Meerut Road, Karnal for making a grill and was talking to the welder (Mistri). In the meanwhile, Suraj Bhan and Chander Mani, his nephews along with an unknown person came there, abused him and quarrelled with him in regard to land dispute. Suraj Bhan gave him a danda blow and he fell down. Suraj Bhan again gave lathi blow on his chest. Chander Mani and his friend gave him slaps and blows. The occurrence was witnessed by the welder. He was admitted in Civil Hospital, Karnal by Om Parkash. On the statement of the complainant, FIR Ex. PW2/C was registered in police station. The accused was arrested in the case. Medico Legal Report, X -ray film and X -ray report of the injured were obtained. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") was submitted for commencement of trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined Raghbir Singh, complainant PW1, Dr. S.K.Midha PW2, Dr. Sham Wadhwa PW3, Lal Singh PW4, Mia Singh PW5 and ASI Bhim Singh, Investigating Officer PW6.

(2.) ON appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as in defence, the learned trial court refused to rely upon testimony of the complainant for want of corroboration by the alleged eye witness and Om Parkash who shifted the injured to the hospital. It was further held that the solitary statement of the complainant is not enough to prove charge against the accused as the same suffers from many infirmities and contradictions. The trial court took notice of the fact that the complainant had a land dispute with the accused family and he had a motive to lodge a false complaint against the accused. The trial court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Haryana vs. Inder Singh and others, 2002 1 ApexCJ 632 to say that if two view are possible, one which is favourable to the accused is to be accepted and in the circumstances of the present case, the court has to accept the view in favour of the accused and accordingly they were acquitted of the offence extending benefit of doubt.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that the learned trial court committed a serious error in holding in favour of the accused (respondents) that statement of the complainant without looking for corroboration from an independent source cannot form basis for recording a verdict of guilt against the accused for the charged offence.