Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 2924
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Jitendra Chauhan, J.
Dharamvir
Versus
State Of Haryana
Crl. Appeal No. 697 of 2001,
Decided On : OCTOBER 25, 2010
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the importance of credible evidence, and the need for consistency and reliability in witness statements.
Headnote:
IPC - Criminal Law - Section 392, Section 394, Section 397 - The judgment discusses the conviction of the accused under Sections 392, 394, and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The court analyzes the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, highlighting discrepancies and inconsistencies in witness statements, the lack of link evidence, and the questionable recovery of incriminating items. The court ultimately acquits the appellant based on the lack of credible evidence and the probability of the appellant's version of events.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for offenses under Sections 392, 394, and 397 of the IPC based on the prosecution's case that he had robbed and caused injuries to the complainant. The prosecution presented witness statements and evidence to support their case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies and inconsistencies in witness statements, lack of link evidence, questionable recovery of incriminating items, and material improvements in the complainant's statement. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witness statements, the admissibility of recovery evidence, and the reliability of the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of credible evidence, discrepancies in witness statements, and the probability of the appellant's version of events. The court emphasized the importance of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment, and acquitted the appellant of the charges.
Jitendra Chauhan, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8/11.5.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat (for short `the trial Court), whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted for the offence and sentenced as under :-
Section 392 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergone for a period of one year. Section 394 IPC To undergo for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Section 397 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.
2 Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 27.11.1999, ASI Virender Singh was going towards Kishora turn in connection with patrolling alongwith other police officials. He saw there a maruti car by the side of road and also noticed an injured person, who was lying in the ditches. ASI Virender Singh picked up the injured and took him to the General Hospital for treatment. The injured Ashok Kumar, herein, `the complainant gave statement, Ex. PG, to the effect that he was running cloth business at Panipat. He started his journey for Delhi at about 12 O clock in connection with his business work in a car bearing registration No. PB- 10AK-2203, being driven by Dharamvir, herein the appellant. The complainant was carrying Rs. 3 lacs and a draft drawn on J & K Bank in a red colour bag upon which, letters A.K. were embroided. When they were at a distance of about 50 yards from Kishora turn, the appellant stopped the car, pressed his throat and hit him with iron rod and inflicted injuries on various parts of his body. The appellant snatched his bag and ran away from the spot. The complainant further submitted that during the scuffle, wind screen of his car was also broken.
3. On the basis of statement, Ex. PG, formal FIR, Exhibit PG/2, was recorded.
4. The accused/appellant was arrested on 15.12.1999. 4. The accused/appellant was charge shetted for the offence punishable under Sections 392, 394 and read with Section 397 of IPC, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses, namely, Dr. Poornima Ahuja, as PW1; HC Sat Narain, as PW2; HC Ram Prasad, as PW3; C. Inderpal, as PW4; Ashok Kumar, as PW5; HC Kapur Singh as PW6; Rajan as PW7; ASI Virender Singh, as PW8; SI Sahab Singh, as PW9 and Kaushalya Rani, as PW10.
6. PW1- Dr.Poornima Ahuja, who medico-legally examined the complainant, deposed that she advised the patient for x-ray of skull and also for Surgeons opinion. During cross-examination, he admitted that the complainant was fully conscious at the time of his medical examination. She also admitted that the injuries on the person of complainant were possible if the vehicle gets stagnated at once by any impact.
7. PW3-HC Ram Prasad, deposed that he joined the investigation of this case with SI Sahab Singh. He further deposed that SI Sahab Singh interrogated the appellant in his presence. The appellant made disclosure statement that he kept concealed an iron road underneath the brush near Kishora Chowk. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know whether SHO tried to join any independent witness at the place or not.
8. PW5-Ashok (complainant) deposed that on 27.11.1999 at about 12 O clock, he started his journey, having cash amounting to Rs. 3 lacs, for Delhi to purchase the articles. Appellant Dharamvir was driver of his car. He further deposed that when they crossed Murthal, accused/appellant stated him that he was feeling hot and asked him to put off his shirt. He further deposed that when the appellant started putting off his shirt, he placed his legs on the dash board. When he
