Back
2017 Supreme(HP) 1398
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
State Of H.p. - Appellant
Versus
Ajeet Singh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 711 of 2008
Decided On : 14-12-2017
Mr. R.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G, for the Appellant; Mr. Dheeraj Vashist vice Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, for the Respondents
The central legal point established in the judgment is the standard of evaluation of evidence in an acquittal case, emphasizing the need for a balanced and thorough assessment of the evidence.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Assault - Indian Penal Code, Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 325, 506 - The court evaluated the evidence and affirmed the judgment of acquittal, finding no merit in the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were charged with forming an unlawful assembly, wrongfully restraining and assaulting the complainant. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies and medical reports.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the judgment of acquittal, stating that the trial court had appropriately evaluated the evidence and that there was no gross mis-appreciation or non-appreciation of evidence.
Issues: The main issue was the evaluation of the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, and whether the judgment of acquittal should be reversed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the trial court had appraised the evidence in a wholesome and harmonious manner, and there was no gross perversity or absurdity in the evaluation of the evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment of the trial court was affirmed and maintained.
JUDGMENT
Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral) - The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgement of acquittal recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur District, Camp at Rampur Bushahar, upon, Police Challan No. 4-2 of 2005, whereby he pronounced an order of acquittal, upon, the accused qua the offences in respect whereof, they stood charged.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.10.2004 at about 7 a.m, while Ganga Ram, complainant was going to board a bus, the accused after forming an unlawful assembly, were present on the road and they wrongfully restrained the complainant Ganga Ram and gave beatings to him. Accused Ajeet Singh inflicted a blow with Khukhari upon the complainant, whereas the other accused gave beatings to him causing grievous injuries to complainant Ganga Ram. Ganga Ram raised an alarm and on hearing his cries Kala Devi reached on the spot and saved the complainant from the clutches of the accused.
The matter was reported to the police. The police referred the injured for medical treatment and taken into possession the nail cutter type knife and dandas, blood stained clothes of the complainant and after procuring the MLC of the injured and on completion of the investigation, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, the Investigating Officer concerned filed a report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. before the Court concerned.
3. Thereupon, the accused stood charged by the learned trial Court for theirs allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 325 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused, under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded wherein they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. They chose to lead defence evidence.
5. The State of H.P. is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded, upon, the accused/respondents, by the learned Court below. The learned Additional Advocate General, has concertedly and vigorously contended that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below being not harbored upon a proper appreciation ''by it'' of the evidence on record rather theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation ''by it" of the material evidence on record. Hence, he, contends that the findings of acquittal warranting reversal by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction besides concomitantly, appropriate sentence(s) being imposed upon the accused/respondent.
6. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below being based on a mature and balanced appreciation ''by it'' of the evidence on record, hence theirs not warranting any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication.
7. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record.
8. The learned Additional Advocate General has contended that the affording, by the learned trial Court vis-a-vis the accused, the benefit of doubt being hinged, upon untenable grounds besides is engendered from its irreverence to the gravity of evidence of probative vigour hence necessitates interference by this Court. He has further argued that the findings of acquittal recorded upon the accused, for theirs allegedly committing offence(s) punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 325 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, being not anvilled, upon proper appreciation of evidence, as such, necessitate interference by this Court.
9. The instant case is hinged, upon, vivid and graphic narration qua the incident being rendered by the eye witnesses vis-a-vis the occurrence AND by the victim. The
