Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sanjay Karol & P.S. Rana, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Vs.
Surjan Singh and others - Respondents
Cr. Appeal No. 254 of 2009
Decided On : 07-09-2015
CRIMINAL - Appeal against acquittal - Offences under Sections 148, 341, 447, 452, 323, 325, 436, 506 read with Section 149 IPC and under Section 27 of Arms Act 1959 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code - Whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and whether learned trial Court had caused miscarriage of justice to the State of H.P. - Held, appeal partly allowed.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution case was that the accused persons arrived at the land purchased by Pratap Singh, pointed a gun at his father, tied him with ropes, gave lever blow on his foot, and gave a blow on his head with the butt of the gun. They also dismantled the house and shed constructed by the son of the injured and set fire to his house. The accused persons produced two ropes, a gun, and a lighter, which were taken into possession by the police. The trial court acquitted all the accused persons.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the testimony of the injured witness was trustworthy, reliable, and inspired confidence of the court. The court also held that the recovery of the gun was proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, the court acquitted the accused persons of the offence under Section 436 IPC, holding that there was no positive evidence to prove which of the accused had destroyed the house and shed constructed by the complainant.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused persons of the offences under Sections 148, 341, 447, 452, 323, 325, 436, 506 read with Section 149 IPC and under Section 27 of Arms Act 1959 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code? 2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons committed the offences?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused persons of the offences under Sections 325 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act 1959. The court found that the testimony of the injured witness was trustworthy, reliable, and inspired confidence of the court. The court also held that the recovery of the gun was proved beyond reasonable doubt. 2. The court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person, Rakeshwar @ Rakesh, committed the offences under Sections 325 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act 1959.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal. The court convicted the accused person, Rakeshwar @ Rakesh, of the offences under Sections 325 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act 1959 and sentenced him to three years' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 for each offence. The sentences were to run concurrently. The court acquitted the other accused persons of all charges.
P.S. Rana, J.
Present appeal is filed against the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Shimla Camp at Rohru in Sessions Trial No. 24-R/7 of 2007 titled Surjan Singh and others vs. State of H.P. decided on dated 18.10.2008.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE:
2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by prosecution are that Partap Singh son of Kalgi Ram purchased immovable land comprised in Khasra No. 127, 132 and 133 situated in village Haunchali Tehsil Chirgaon District Shimla H.P. from one Bahadur Singh by way of registered sale deed. It is alleged by prosecution that in December 2006 Partap Singh had constructed a house and shed on the land so purchased and thereafter his parents started living in the house and shed. It is alleged by prosecution that on dated 19.3.2007 at 9 AM all accused persons arrived at land purchased by Pratap Singh by way of sale deed. It is alleged by prosecution that co-accused Rakeshwar was having a gun and he pointed out the gun at Partap Singh’s father namely Kalgi Ram injured aged 70 years. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter wife of Kalgi Ram started to proceed to inform Partap Singh her son about arrival of accused persons and when she was proceeding from residential house co-accused Rakeshwar @ Rakesh pointed the gun at her. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter accused persons tied Kalgi Ram injured aged 70 years with ropes and gave lever (Jhabbal) blow on foot of Kalgi. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter co-accused Rakeshwar had given a blow on head of Kalgi injured aged 70 years with butt of gun. It is alleged by prosecution that other accused persons put chilli powder in eyes of injured Kalgi aged 70 years. It is alleged by prosecution that accused persons have also dismantled the house and shed constructed by son of injured Kalgi. It is alleged by prosecution that accused persons have also put Kalgi injured’s son house on fire. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter Kalgi Ram reported the marrter to Amar Singh Pardhan and his neighbour Shakti Lal. It is alleged by prosecution that Kalgi Ram injured 70 years was advised to report the matter to police station and police officials were informed telephonically. It is alleged by prosecution that FIR Ext.PW1/A was filed and Kalgi Ram injured aged 70 years was medically examined and his MLC Ext.PW8/B was obtained. It is alleged by prosecution that Partap Singh produced photographs of house and shed Ext.PW1/A and Ext.PW4/B and also produced copy of application filed to SDM Ext.PW1/E and also placed on record the order of Civil Court Ext.PW1/D, copy of daily diary report No. 29 dated 8.7.2006 Ext.PW1/F and also produced jamabandi Ext.PW1/K which were took into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW1/D. It is alleged by prosecution that Investigating agency took into possession 14 burnt iron sheets vide memo Ext.PW13/A and I.O. also took photographs Ext.PW16/B-1 to Ext.PW16/B-5 and negatives of which are Ext.PW16/B-6 to Ext.PW16/B-10. It is alleged by prosecution that I.O. also prepared site plan Ext.PW16/A. It is alleged by prosecution that co-accused Surjan and co-accused Rakeshwar identified the place of incident. It is alleged by prosecution that I.O. also took coal, ash etc from the spot vide memo Ext.PW1/C. It is alleged by prosecution that I.O. also took into possesison burnt utensils from the spot vide memo Ext.PW1/B. It is alleged by prosecution that co-accused Rakeshwar produced two ropes which were took into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW1/M. It is alleged by prosecution that co-accused Surjan produced 12 bore gun and its licence which were took into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW1/N. It is alleged by prosecution that kata (Sharp edged weapon) Ext.P16, jhabbal (Sharp edged weapon) Ext.P13 and gas lighter were took into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW1/P. It is alleged by
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
