The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging an acquittal. The court upheld the trial court's finding that eye-witnesses failed to identify the accused and had serious discrepancies, rendering the prosecution case untenable.
The impugned judgment acquitting the accused was upheld and the revision petition was dismissed.
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.
Criminal Revision No.107 of 1999 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Cr.Revision No.107 of 1999 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 26.9.2011
Ram Partap
PETITIONER
VERSUS
Shamshad and others RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:Shri Shri B.R.Vohra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate.
Shri Sandeep Mann, Senior D.A.G. Haryana.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The acquittal of the accused persons awarded vide the impugned judgment dated 8.10.1998 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri has been questioned in the instant petition.
The accused persons faced proceedings with the accusation levelled by the complainant that on 8.7.1997 at about 10 p.m. he along with his son Sat Narain as also Prabhu Ram and Pardeep Kumar had gone to Bilaspur where they went to the crusher of Balbir Singh who accompanied them to the Poultry Farm of Vishwa Nath in Bilaspur itself. The purpose of visiting Vishwa Nath was to take
Criminal Revision No.107 of 1999 -2-
the land of one Jagan brother of Vishwa Nath on contract. Sat Narain kept standing by the side of the scooter, while three persons named Mehraj, Shamshad and Jahir Shamshad came there. Accused Shamshad was having a knife in his hand, while the other two were holding pistols in their hands. All the three were known to Ram Partap previously, because they had been doing labour work in the area. The accused persons asked Ram Partap and others including the deceased to give them whatever they had with them and upon their refusal, Jahir fired a shot which did not hit anyone, while Shamshad stabbed Sat Narain in his abdomen with his knife. The complainant and other persons tried to apprehend the assailants, but they escaped.
The trial Court concluded that there were serious discrepancies in the statements of the eye-witnesses and that they had failed to identify the accused persons. The presence of the eye-witnesses was also darkened by doubt. Likewise, the recovery of knife and pistol was also doubted by the Court and thus, on the strength of this reasoning, acquittal was awarded to the accused persons.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the impugned judgment is not based on cogent reasoning and thus, prayed for over-turning the same.
I have considered the arguments raised before this Court.
Ram Partap is the complainant whose very presence has been rendered doubtful by the testimony of Balbir Singh PW-3 who categorically denied that Ram Partap was present at the spot. Another witness Prabhu Ram PW-4 also denied his presence. Pardeep Kumar who was said to be accompanying deceased Sat Narain and Prabhu Ram, was also not examined, even though he was an inherent part of the sequence of events.
While being examined at a subsequent stage, he admitted that Ram Partap PW-2 was with them when they went to Bilaspur which indicated that the
Criminal Revision No.107 of 1999 -3-
statement of Pardeep Kumar which was recorded subsequently by the prosecution, was indeed an attempt to fill in the lacuna left by the other eye-witnesses regarding the presence of Ram Partap PW-2.
That apart, according to the complainant, he knew the accused persons, as they were labourers working in the area, but he could not identify the name of the crusher where they were employed, even though he had mentioned the same to the police. He further testified that he had never visited the crusher of Anil Kumar and consequently, his testimony regarding his familiarity with the accused was was also rendered doubtful.
In view of this, when neither the presence of the complainant was inspiring, nor the identification of the accused was established, the Court was right in holding that the recovery of knife and its determination as the weapon of offence was also doubtful, as it was not having blood-stains which could have been got examined to establish the guilt of the accused persons.
When all these factors are taken into consideration in totality, this Court is of the opinion that it does not establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt. Thus, there is no reason to differ with the finding recorded by the learned Court below.
No ground to interfere.
Dismissed.
September 26, 2011 GD
(MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's acquittal of the accused persons due to discrepancies in witness testimony and failed identification.
Whether the presence of the complainant and reliable identification of the accused were established beyond doubt given the conflicting testimony.
Whether the recovery of the weapon (knife) was reasonably connected to the guilt of the accused given the lack of blood-stain examination.
Ram Partap
Shamshad
others
MAHESH GROVER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
