In this criminal revision, the High Court rejected the petitioner's challenge to a Session Court order reversing a conviction. The court confirmed that the appellate court correctly applied the benefit of doubt due to material contradictions in witness statements and lack of corroboration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Revision No. 296 of 2002
Date of decision: March 10, 2009
Bharawan Bai
.. Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. Kuldeep Sanwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. None for the respondents No.2 to 8.
A.N. Jindal, J
Assailed in this petition is the judgment of reversal dated 14.5.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, accepting the appeal filed by the accused-respondents (herein referred as the respondents) against the judgment dated 24.12.1996 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, convicting and sentencing them as under :- All the accused-respondents
| U/s 365 IPC | : | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1- ½ years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each. |
|---|---|---|
| U/s 354 IPC | : | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. |
| U/s 342 IPC | : | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. |
| U/s 323 IPC | : | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months each. |
| U/s 148 IPC | : | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. |
| U/s 506 IPC | : | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months each. |
In brief, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 12.3.1994, at about 10.30 a.m. the complainant Bharawan Bai (herein referred as 'the complainant') was present in her house all alone and talking with her sister-
Crl. Revision No. 296 of 2002
-2-
in-law Lachhmi Bai while standing near the wall, in the meanwhile, Waryam Chand son of Mahla Ram armed with pistol, Lachhman Das son of Mahla Ram, Kashmir Chand son of Ranja Ram, Sada Bai wife of Mahla Ram all empty handed, Jagir Chand son of Ranjha Ram having something in his hand, Des Raj son of Hari Chand and Chiman Ram son of not known armed with pole-axe, came there. Waryam Chand put his pistol against her breast and shouted to teach her a lesson for calling names by her son to him. The respondents dragged her to the house of Waryam Chand, tore her clothes and made her naked. Des Ram inflicted pole-axe from its blunt side on her right upper arm, Chiman Lal inflicted pole axe blow from the blunt side at her right shoulder. Desa Ram inflicted another blow from the blunt side at her right thigh. She fell down and while she was lying down, Chiman Lal inflicted another blow at her right wrist from the blunt side of pole axe. Waryam Chand, Kashmir Chand, Jagir Chand and Sada Bai inflicted kick blows upon her. When the complainant raised alarm, all the respondents went away leaving her in a naked condition. When she was going to her house, she met her brother-in-law Mohna Ram, who gave her chaddar and took her to the hospital for medical treatment. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of the complainant, the case was registered and investigation commenced. The respondents were arrested and weapons of offence were taken into possession. On completion of the investigation, challan against the respondents was presented in the Court.
The respondents were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 148/365/364/342/323/506/149 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.
In order to substantiate the charges against the respondents, the prosecution examined Dr. Sunil Juneja Medical Officer (PW1), Bharwan Bai complainant (PW2), Lachhmi Bai eye witness (PW3), Mohna Ram (PW4), HC Darshan Singh (PW5), ASI Prem Kumar (PW6) and Inspector Nagaur Singh (PW7).
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they denied all the allegations and pleaded their false implication in the case. They further explained that Krishna Bai sister of Waryam Chand is married with Ramesh son of Milkh Ram and Milkh Ram is relative of Bharwan Bai. Ramesh used
-3-
Crl. Revision No. 296 of 2002
to beat and maltreat the sister of Waryam Chand and she was externed from matrimonial home. She was not rehabilitated by her husband who wanted to take divorce from her. He further explained that Bharwan Bai and Milkh Raj colluded with each other and entangled them in this false case. However, they examined Hari Chand (DW1) and Munshi Ram (DW2) in their defence.
Arguments heard.
It was contended that the lower appellate court has fell in error while granting benefit of doubt to the respondents. The impugned judgment has been passed on misreading of evidence, as the complainant as well as the eye witness have fully supported the prosecution case and there are no such material contradictions in their statements going to the root of the case.
Having pondered over the arguments, I do not find any merit in it as it is the specific case of the prosecution that the complainant was abducted from her house while she was holding talks with her sister-in-law Lachhmi Bai and was dragged to the house of Waryam Chand which is situated at a distance of 95-100 karams. It has also come on record that there are number of houses and shops in between the house of the complainant and Waryam Chand. It does not sound to the reason that while she was abducted from her house and thereafter made to go back in a naked condition, none from the locality had witnessed the occurrence and it was only Mohna Singh (PW4) who met her on the way and gave her chaddar. There are other material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses as it has been submitted by the complainant that when she was abducted, she and Lachhmi Bai (PW3) had raised noise and they tried to save her from the clutches of the respondents, whereas, Lachhmi Bai (PW3) in her cross examination has categorically admitted that after the incident she remained at her house and did not complaint about the incident to any one. She has also admitted that she even did not inform the brother of the complainant, Sarpanch or the Panch of the village. She has also admitted that she did not inform her husband even about the incident and informed him only when he returned to the house. As such, these material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses go to the root of the case and falsify the prosecution version. That apart, Hari Chand (DW1) has categorically
Crl. Revision No. 296 of 2002
-4-
deposed that the house of the complainant is visible from his house and no such incident as alleged by the complainant had taken place. His statement also finds corroboration from the testimony of Muni Ram (DW2).
Having examined the impugned judgment, the lower appellate court appears to have discussed all the material points elaborately while extending benefit of doubt to the respondents. As such, I do not find any ground to differ with the same.
Consequently, the instant petition being unmerited is
dismissed.
March 10, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused in the facts of the case.
Whether the assailed judgment of reversal requires interference.
Bharawan Bai
State of Punjab
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
