State appeal against acquittal of fifteen accused in a cross-case free fight at village Dubaldhan. The High Court found the eye-witnesses unreliable, contradictions in the complaint, and a plausible plea of private defence, and affirmed the acquittal.
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.
CRA-D-841-DB-2013 (O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CRA-D-841-DB-2013 (O&M) Reserved on: 21.11.2024 Date of Decision: 16.12.2024
Rajesh
......Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Argued by : Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Pardeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Anas Ahmed, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for respondent No. 2.
Mr. Govind Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No. 4, 5, 6, 12 and 16.
Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for respondents No. 5, 11, 12 and 16.
Mr. Prince Goyal, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for respondents No. 3, 7 to 11 and 13 to 15.
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
Factual Background
The genesis of the prosecution case, becomes embodied in a
Gurpreet Singh2024.12.19 10:48 2. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRA-D-841-DB-2013 (O&M) -2-
cross case registered against the accused-respondents in appeal FIR, to which Ex. P-3 is assigned. As per the prosecution story, complainant Rajesh Kumar got recorded his statement with the police officer concerned, to the effect that on 17.08.2008 at about 07:00 A.M., when he was standing in front of his house at village Dubaldhan, then accused Raj Karan son of Sumer of the village came there on a bullock-cart and called him with bad names. When the complainant objected over the said act of the accused, thereupon accused started giving beatings to him. He further alleges, that in the meantime, Raj Bala wife of Raj Singh, Dharmender son of Sri Krishan, Asha Ram son of Sri Krishan, Rinku son of Raj Singh, Sonu son of Om Parkash, Ishwar son of Ram Kishan, Hari Ram son of Dariav Singh, Vijay son of Mahla Ram, Vinod son of Prem Singh and Norattan son of Hari Singh, all residents of Village Dubaldhan, armed with deadly weapons, reached at the spot, and, inflicted injuries upn him. Upon raising hues and cries by the complainant, one Mangat son of Rameshwar Dass, Krishan son of Mint Lal, Gajanand son of Lillu Ram, Vijay son of Mint Lal and Ved Parkash son of Rameshwar reached at the spot and saved him from the clutches of accused persons. The complainant further states, that the accused persons had also inflicted injuries to the above-named persons. The accused while leaving the spot also threatened the complainant party with dire consequences.
Gurpreet Singh 2024.12.19 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRA-D-841-DB-2013 (O&M) -3-
Investigation proceedings
Committal Proceedings
Trial Proceedings
CRA-D-841-DB-2013 (O&M) -4-
thereins, the accused pleaded innocence, and, claimed false implication. Though, the accused chose to lead evidence in his defence, however, they did not lead any witness into the witness box.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant
Submissions on behalf of the learned counsels for the accusedrespondents
Inference of this Court
“x x x x 21. Coming to the deposition of prosecution witnesses, there are only three witnesses, i.e. PW-1 Rajesh, PW-2 Mangat Ram and PW-9 Ved Parkash who are the eye-witnesses. All the three also happens to be the injured ones. The deposition of none amongst them tellies with the other as already highlighted by learned defence
Gurpreet Singh 2024.12.19 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRA-D-841-DB-2013 (O&M)
-5-
counsel. The crux of the deposition of PW1 is that he has not seen any accused causing any injury to any other person of his family, but he was affirm that none from the complainant-side caused any injury to the accused-party. There are fifteen accused persons in the present case whereas PW1 Rajesh has named in his complaint (Exh.PA) only eleven accused persons and not whisper a single word about rest of the accused persons. PW-2 has admitted in very words that by the time he reached at the spot, injuries to all other persons of complainant party has already been caused. PW9 is the most interested witness as he is the author of a previous FIR (Exh.D9) lodged against accused party about two months back. The manner in which PW-2 & PW-9 have deposed merely suggests that, at the maximum, they were simply the curiosity-smitten-spectators when some hotch-potch was happening in the street outside the house of Mint Lal. They have taken one-sided stand and speak only about the injuries of prosecution party and have failed to give any explanation regarding the injuries of accused persons. Either of these two witnesses is telling a lie about the occurrence. if both are not speaking falsely. By construing it on either side, the benefit of this doubt will certainly go to the accused persons.
22. If prosecution admits that accused persons first started giving injuries to Rajesh (PWI) outside his own house while number of his family persons were present inside the house, then it is highly probable of that they all will rebound the attack. Naturally it will give a right of private defence to the complainant party to come in support of Rajesh who in his own house was lacing persons of the accused party. The house of accused persons is at a good distance and when they will came to know that their persons are fighting (or are being beaten) outside the house of opposite party, then everyone from the accused side will naturally draw an impression that more force is required to rescue them and it will certainly result into giving a right of private defence to the accused party to save their persons.
23. Had there been such a number of accused persons ready to cause injuries with deadly weapons with an intention to murder, then injuries on the person of complainant party would have certainly been of different nature and not the superficial abrasions or lacerated wound on the non-vital parts. If a pause is taken here to presume that complainant party has also inflicted injuries in self defence upon the accused persons, but there is no explanation with which weapons they had caused the injuries to the accused party, from where complainant party brought those weapons, which of the person of complainant party caused injury and upon whom of the accused party. During cross-examination none of the eye-witnesses have admitted that he had caused any injury to any of the accused. Exh.D2 to Exh.D7 show an altogether different story as multiple injuries on accused persons have been found mentioned therein. x x x x
Gurpreet Singh 2024.12.19 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRA-D-841-DB-2013 (O&M)
-6-
27. At the cost of repetition, it has to be stated that the prosecution has failed to place the correct facts qua the genesis and the sequence of events in which the incident took place. There are a number of other infirmities also in the prosecution case, as discussed in the preceding paras. Having come to a conclusion that the incident in all probability took place in a manner different than the one suggested by the prosecution, this court is left with no alternative but to give the benefit thereof to the accused persons. Accordingly, accused persons are hereby acquitted from all the charges leveled against them.
x x x x” 12. Initially, the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to disbelieve the testification of PW-1 on the ground, that he had not seen the occurrence, nor obviously he had sighted any accused causing injury(ies) to his injured family members. The further reason, which became assigned by the learned trial Judge concerned, to record a finding of acquittal vis-a-vis the accused, became rested upon the factum, that the said witness had assigned an incriminatory role to about 15 persons, whereas, in his complaint (Ex. PA), the names of only 11 persons become echoed. As such, when there are evident inter se contradictions inter se the supra speakings made by PW-1, with the echoings occurring in Ex. PA, as appertaining to the numbers of the incriminatory participants in the crime event, therebys, the above assigned reasons acquire aggravated strength.
CRA-D-841-DB-2013 (O&M) -7-
crime event. Resultantly therebys when the said witness also did not eye witness the occurrence, therebys, the incrimination drawn by him against the accused, thus looses its vigour. Moreover, it is also got to be firmly stated that therebys the said witness has also not only rendered a concocted and premeditated version vis-a-vis the crime event, but also has smothered the true genesis of the crime event, whereupon no credence is required to be assigned to his testification.
(a) That the assault, as became committed by the accused upon the complainant was so committed in the exercise of right of private defence of property and of body.
(b) That there was lack of proper investigations into the crime event by the investigating officer concerned, wherebys there was suppression of the true genesis of the crime incident, whereupon the learned trial Judge concerned, became ultimately led to conclude that benefit of doubt is to be accorded to the accused persons.
Gurpreet Singh 2024.12.19 10:48I attest to the accuracy and16. The said reasons are borne out by the evidence on record, and, integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRA-D-841-DB-2013 (O&M) -8-
therefore, even if some injuries as depicted in the MLRs, to which Ex. P2/A, P2/B, Ex. P2/C and Ex. Ex. P2/D become assigned, became entailed, upon the injured concerned, besides even if the said injuries are grievous in nature, yet in the wake of the supra well made reasons recorded by the learned trial Judge concerned, rather the said injuries are deemed to be incurred by the accused only as a sequel of theirs exercising their right of private defence.
Gurpreet Singh 2024.12.19 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRA-D-841-DB-2013 (O&M) -9-
Final order
(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE
December 16th , 2024 Gurpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
Gurpreet Singh 2024.12.19 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused under Sections 307, 326, 325, 323, 506, 148/149 IPC was sustainable.
Whether the prosecution proved the true genesis of the incident or whether the injuries were inflicted in private defence.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajesh
State of Haryana
Raj Karan and other accused-respondents
Sureshwar Thakur
Sudeepti Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
