NATHU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 30th August, 1986, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, in the Sessions Case No. 8 of 1986.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the prosecution was that the appellants alongwith two others, namely Patasi, wife of Prem, and Kamla wife of Nathu, criminally assaulted Head Constable Bal Krishan and Constable Rishi Parkash, two members of Railway Police posted at Railway Station, Dabwali on 19th January, 1986. In support of its case, the Prosecution examined the injured Police Officials, namely, Head Constable Bal Krishan and Constable Rishi Parkash. Besides these two officials, the prosecution also examined Dr. Vasudeva Bansal (PW1). Investigating Officer ASI Jit Kumar (PW6) and some formal witnesses.

(3.) MR . Bali, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, drew my attention to the statements of P.W. 4, Head Constable Bal Krishan, P.W. 5 Constable Rishi Parkash and P.W. 6 ASI Jit Kumar, Investigating Officer and submitted that there was material discrepancy in the statements of the aforesaid witnesses and keeping in view those discrepancies, the appellants could not be convicted under section 332/333 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. He submitted that P.W. 4, in his examination -in -chief, had stated that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer in the Hospital, but in the cross -examination he has stated that his statement was recorded by ASI Jit Kumar in the waiting hall immediately after the incident and he has also admitted that in the waiting hall, there were about 100/150 persons. He further submitted that Constable Rishi Parkash, in his cross -examination, has stated that in the waiting hall, ASI Jit Kumar did not inquire about this incident from him or from Head Constable Bal Krishan and the said Investigating Officer had arrived in the Hospital at about 10/11 P.M. and only then he examined Head Constable Bal Krishan regarding this incident. He also stated in his cross -examination that after arriving at the Hospital, Head Constable Bal Krishan had become unconscious. ASI Jit Kumar (PW6), in his examination -in -chief, stated that he recorded the statements, Exhibits, DA and DR of Head Constable Bal Krishan and Constable Rishi Parkash in the Hospital, after both these witnesses were declared fit to make a statement by the doctor. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that the conviction on the basis of these statement was not sustainable.