Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Paras Ram & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 243 of 2012
Decided On : 06-07-2021
S.397 - Criminal Revision petition - Ss. 148, 323, 325, 452 and 506 r/w S.149 IPC - [Ss. 148, 323, 325, 452, 506 r/w S.149 IPC] - The court discussed the evidence and found major flaws in the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused. The court highlighted inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, lack of evidence connecting the accused to the injuries suffered by the complainant, and failure to prove common intention under S.149 IPC. The court also emphasized the need for consistency and credibility in evaluating evidence in criminal cases.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that the accused attacked him and his son, causing injuries. The prosecution presented witnesses and evidence to support the charges. The accused denied the allegations and claimed that the police asked them to produce the weapons after purchasing them from the market. The trial court convicted the accused based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found major flaws in the prosecution's case, including inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, lack of evidence connecting the accused to the injuries suffered by the complainant, and failure to prove common intention under S.149 IPC. As a result, the court quashed the judgments/orders of conviction and sentence and acquitted all the accused.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecution's evidence, the consistency of witness statements, and the establishment of common intention under S.149 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for consistency and credibility in evaluating evidence in criminal cases. It highlighted the importance of proving common intention under S.149 IPC and the flaws in the prosecution's investigation.
Final Decision: The court quashed the judgments/orders of conviction and sentence and acquitted all the accused.
JUDGMENT
Sandeep Sharma, J. - Instant Cr. Revision petition filed under S.397 read with S.401 CrPC, lays challenge to judgment dated 14.10.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge in Cr. Appeal No. 10/2009 (RBT No. 94-2012) affirming JUDGMENT of conviction and sentence dated 28.3.2009 by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh passed in Cr. Case No. 424-1/07-36-II/2008, whereby learned trial Court, while holding petitioners/accused (hereinafter, 'accused') guilty of having committed offences punishable under Ss. 148, 323, 325, 452 and 506 r/w S.149 IPC convicted and sentenced them as under:
1 year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each (with the stipulation in case of default in paying fine, 2 months simple imprisonment) | 148 r/w 149 |
3 months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of 500/- each and in default of payment of fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month | 323 r/2 149 |
1 year simple imprisonment and to pay fine of 500/- each in default of the payment of fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months | 325 4r/2 149 |
1 year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months | 452 |
6 months simple imprisonment and to pay of fine Rs.500/- each and default of payment of fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for a period fo 1 month | 506 r/2 149 |
2. Precisely, the case of the prosecution, as emerges from the record is that on 23.9.2007, complainant Jindu Ram, PW-1, filed complaint, Ext. PW-1/A, alleging therein that on 23.9.2007, at about 9.30 am, while he was getting ready to go to school, he after having heard noise in the courtyard of his house, came to the door of his room and saw that the accused namely Rewat Ram, Neerat Ram, Kunj Lal, Ram Chand, paras Ram, Bati Devi, Bholi Devi, Gyan Chand and Joginder, were standing in the courtyard carrying dandas and sickles in their hands, whereas, accused Neerat Ram, Kunj Lal, and Ram Chadn were carrying darat in their hands and other accused were also carrying some weapons. Complainant alleged that when he was present on the door of house, all the accused firstly extended threats and thereafter, forcibly came to door of room and threw him in the courtyard. Complainant alleged that firstly accused persons gave beatings to him with kicks and blows but, thereafter, they tried to attack him with sickle, however, he warded off the attack by getting himself back. When complainant was being attacked by the accused named herein above, son of complainant namely Khayali Ram reached the spot and accused persons also gave beatings to him with kicks and fist blows. Complainant also alleged that accused Neerat Ram, Kunj Lal, Ram Chand and Joginder while carrying dandas and sickles in their hands ran behind them and on account of beatings given by aforesaid persons, they suffered injuries on their heads, faces as well as other internal organs of their persons.
3. Prior to filing of complainant, Ext. PW-1/A, complainant had filed an application against accused persons at Patlikuhal but since no action was taken, on 23.9.2007, he presented the application/complainant Ext. PW-1/A to In charge Police Station Manali., on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW-6/A came to be registered against the accused persons. After completion of investigation, police presented Challan in the competent Court of law.
4. Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as 7 witnesses whereas, accused in their statements recorded under S.313 CrPC, denied the case of prosecution in toto and claimed that the police asked them to produce axe, sickle etc. after purchasing them from market. However, accused did not lead any evidence in their defence. On the basis of the evidence collected on record, learned trial Court held accused guilty of commission of the offences punishable under aforesaid provisions of law and accordingly convicted and sentence
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
