PARAS KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has been filed by the 'victim' complainant Paras Kumar, minor through his father Sultan Singh against the judgment and order dated 01.04.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal whereby Karambir - respondent No.2 has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short).

(2.) Paras Kumar-appellant went to the Police Station on 02.05.2013 and submitted an application (Ex.PJ) before the Inspector/SHO Sh. Vishnu Parshad of Police Station Dhand, District Kaithal. The appellant stated that he was studying in a private school in his village in the eighth class. It is alleged by the appellant that on 26.04.2013 at about 5.00 p.m, he had gone to Senior Secondary High School, Ahun on a bicycle for playing. After parking his bicycle in front of the school, when he tried to enter the school, Karambir-respondent No.2, whose house is situated in front of school came there and informed him that puppies had just been born. He asked the appellant to accompany him to see the puppies. The appellant on his inducement went near the heap of fodder ('toori kup') inside his house near the temple. Karambir- respondent No.2 there gave a beating to him and with an intention to eliminate him, throttled him (from his neck) with his hands and also thrashed him and made him fall on the ground. Then considering him dead, he put him under the rice straw ('parali'). When he regained consciousness he raised an alarm of 'Bachao Bachao'. On hearing the same, his father Sultan Singh came there and took him out from the rice straw ('parali'). The parents of the appellant continued to convene panchayats in the village but the matter could not be settled. On these allegations it was prayed that legal action be taken against the accused (respondent No.2). On the application (Ex.PJ), FIR (Ex.PL) was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323/342/307 IPC. Karambir - respondent No.2 was arrested on 02.05.2013. The place where the incident had occurred was photographed. Respondent No.2 on his disclosure statement (Ex.PV) demarcated the place of occurrence regarding which memo (Ex.PX) was prepared. Investigations in the case were conducted. Statement (Ex.PK) of the appellant in terms of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('CrPC' for short) was recorded. Site plan (Ex.PH) was prepared by the Halqa Patwari. Statements of witnesses in terms of Section 161 CrPC were recorded. Respondent No.2 Karmabir was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 342 IPC on 29.08.2013. He pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges against him, the prosecution examined seven witnesses.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that respondent No.2 had throttled the throat of the appellant and had left him as dead by covering him under the rice straw ('parali') treating him to be dead. Therefore, it is submitted that this shows the clear intention on the part of respondent No.2 to commit the murder of the appellant. Reference has also been made to the statement of respondent No.2 recorded under Section 313 CrPC. Respondent No.2 in his statement inter alia stated that on the date of incident that is on 26.04.2013 at 5.00 p.m., he was present at the house and when he came out of the house he saw that Paras Ram (appellant) after entering into the temple had picked up an amount of Rs.3.50 paise from the temple. He was caught by him with the stolen money. Respondent No.2 immediately informed Sultan, father of the appellant Paras Ram through his mobile phone. The father of the appellant came at the spot and he was informed about the said theft. Thereafter, Sultan took his son Paras (appellant) in the village and thereafter in connivance with the police got a false case registered against respondent No.2. The presence of respondent No.2 at the time of incident, therefore, it is submitted has been admitted and as such it would be evident that the prosecution case stands proved against respondent No.2 and he should be convicted for the offence under Section 307 and Section 342 IPC.