MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mukhtiar Singh, the complainant, has filed this appeal challenging order dated 12.12.2013, recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, acquitting respondent nos.2 to 10 of charges under Sections 148/186/353/323/307 and 506, read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant contends that evidence adduced by the prosecution proves that respondent nos.2 to 10 were in unauthorised occupation of panchayat land and were, therefore, ordered to be evicted by the High Court. Respondent nos. 2 to 10, in their attempt to resist eviction, attacked the appellant and other officials leading to a large number of injuries, which are corroborated by medical evidence as well as by ocular testimony. The prosecution has also recovered weapons used in the attack, namely, gandasis, sticks etc. blood stained clothes and blood stained earth, thereby proving in its entirety the case set up by the prosecution. The acquittal of respondent nos. 2 to 10 by referring to irrelevant and inconsequential contradictions, in the depositions of prosecution witnesses, reveals a perverse and arbitrary consideration of the evidence, thereby rendering the acquittal, null and void. The finding that the complainant and prosecution witnesses have named additional persons while deposing in court over and above persons named in the FIR etc., or that witnesses have come up with different versions, is not discernible from the record. It is argued that the fact that injuries were detected during medical examination, weapons were recovered and all other link evidence was proved, renders acquittal of respondent nos. 2 to 10 illegal and void.

(3.) Counsel for respondent nos.2 to 10 submits that the mere fact that injuries have been detected on the persons of the complainant as well as the injured, are not sufficient to prove that they were inflicted by respondent nos. 2 to 10. A perusal of depositions by prosecution witnesses reveals that not only are they discrepant in material particulars but they have also added a large number of names while deposing in court. The fact that ASI Sunil Dutt was unable to lift any blood stained earth from the spot proves that the deposition by alleged eye witness is false, as the site plan, Ex.P12, clearly records the place where blood is said to have fallen, but surprisingly, blood stained earth was not detected at the spot. The fact that respondent no.2 to 10 were, statedly, arrested at 6.00 P.M. in the evening, from the gurdwara with blood stained gandasis etc., clearly proves that the prosecution story is false. If respondent nos. 2 to 10 had inflicted injuries in the morning when, admittedly, about 2000 police personnel were present at the spot, they would not have remained in or outside the gurdwara till 6.00 P.M. If at all, the respondents had participated in the incident, as alleged by the prosecution, they would have been arrested at the time of incident and not at 6.00 P.M from the gurdwara. The discrepancies and contradictions pointed out by the trial court are sufficient to acquit respondent nos.2 to 10.