Applicant sought leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC against acquittal of eight accused in a complaint case alleging caste-based assault on his wife. The court found the trial court's findings on absence of medical evidence, three-month delay and material contradictions unimpeachable, and dismissed the application.
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.
Page 1 of 11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
215 CRM-A-1042-2019(O&M) Date of order: 07.11.2024
Brijpal
…..Applicant(s)
Vs.
Murari Lal & Others
…..Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:Mr. Jayant Yadav, Advoc a te for Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AA G Haryana.
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Present application und e r Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is file d seeking leav e to file appeal against judgme n t of acquittal dated 15.01.201 9 passed by t h e learned Sub-Divisional Judic i al Magistrate, Bawal, whereb y the accuse d /respondents No.1 to 8 he r ein have been acquitted in complaint c a se under Sections 148, 149, 32 3 , 354, 506 IPC and Section 3 o f SC/ST Act.
SUNENA 2024.11.11 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
the applica n t had first approached the p o lice authorities to take actio n against the a ccused persons. The filing of t h e complaint by the applicant t o the Superin t endent of Police, Rewari is duly proved by application dated 23.03.2013 ( Ex.P1/Mark P1). As regards t h e alleged discrepancies in th e statements o f the witnesses, it is contended that the learned trial Court ha s failed to ap p reciate that minor discrepancies are bound to occur when a person is examined again after a passage o f time. In any event, the sai d discrepancies are not material and do n o t shake the testimony of th e witnesses. E v en the improvements noted b y the learned trial Court are no t drastic imp r ovements and are not suffici e nt to reject the case of th e applicant. It is submitted that the entire t estimony has to be read as a whole but t h e learned trial Court has failed to consider the evidence in th e correct legal and factual perspective. It is accordingly prayed that th e present application be allowed, and the im p ugned judgment of acquittal b e set aside.
perused the case file in great detail.
SUNENA 2024.11.11 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
follows: -
“O n 21.04.2013, at about 06 : 00 PM when the wife of th e complainant went to her plot a nd started putting bricks in it, the complainant also reache d there. Suddenly, the accuse d persons, who were having a grudge against the complainan t on the issue that the complainant was a member of schedul e caste and purchased a plot fro m Brahmin, they started abusin g the wife of the complainant wi t h a caste related abuses. Then, accused Anil put his hand o f h e r chest in order to outrage he r modesty and by using force. G irdhari and Balwant torn he r clothes and pushed her to t h e earth and they tried to d o obscene act with her and the accused persons humiliated t o the complainant's wife with ca s te related abuses in the whol e public view. Then, Bhori Devi W /o Karan Singh, Ram Niwas S/ o Ratti Ram, Sunder S/o Raghub i r, Chandan S/o Bijender, Kant a W/o Bishamber, Bishamber S / o Khayali etc. gathered there. Bhori Devi, Sunder, Ram Niwa s rescued the complainant an d his wife from the clutches of the accused. It has also bee n alleged that Yogesh, Yogender a nd Lalita and Saroj slapped th e complainant and gave her fist b lows at the time of the assault. They called that the complain a nt and his wife to sweep th e village and the repair the shoe s of the public. The matter wa s reported to police but the police officials colluded with th e accused persons and no acti o n was initiated against them. Then, an application was also moved to S.P. Rewari but n o action was taken. Hence, th e present complaint has bee n f iled.”
SUNENA 2024.11.11 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
offence und e r the SC/ST Act. In the said e nquiry, discrepant statement s were made by the applicant and the victi m . From the record, it clearl y emerges that different versions have been given by the applicant and th e complainant at different stages. The learn e d trial Court has found severa l discrepancies and contradictions in the st a tements of the victim and th e applicant fr o m time to time. Relevant fin d ings returned by learned trial Court are as follows: -
“12. The complainant got h imself examined as PW4 i n preliminary evidence. In his t estimony, he stated that o n 24.04.2013, his wife has gon e to the plot in dispute. Ther e Murari Lal asked his sons nam e ly Anil, Balwant and Girdhari t o humiliate the complainant's w ife namely Maya Devi and t o made her leave the place. Anil on asking of his father, pushe d the chest of Maya Devi where a s Girdhari & Balwant torn he r clothes and pushed her to the g ound. They abused her. In th e meanwhile, Yogesh, Yogender, S aroj and Lalita started abusin g her and gave her kicks and blo w s. When the complainant trie d to rescue her, they also started b eating him and gave him cast e based abuses. Then, Ram Ni w as, Sunder, Bhori, Bishambe r Dayal, Chandan and Kanta rescued them. The complainan t again appeared in pre-charg e evidence and stated that o n 21.04.2013, both the complai n ant and his wife had gone t o plot in dispute to collect the b ricks there. In the meanwhil e Murari Lal, Anil, Girdhari, Bal w ant, Yogesh, Yogender, Lalit a and Saroj came. Murari Lal a s ked them to humiliate. On hi s asking, Anil Kumar pushed Ma y a Devi on her chest and mad e her fell on the ground wherea s Girdhari and Balwant torn he r clothes and others gave her k i cks and blows. He stated tha t Ram Niwas, Bhori, Narender, C handan, Durga Parsad and hi s
SUNENA 2024.11.11 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
f ather came to his rescued. Per u sal of the case file reveals tha t a DSP level enquiry was hel d in the present case as th e allegations of hurling of caste based abuses were made. In tha t enquiry, the complainant and the other witnesses made th e statement before the police. When the statement of th e complainant before the police was made on 13.06.2013, h e stated that the accused Murari Lal and his family member s f orcibly took possession of the plot in dispute. On 21.04.2013, at about 05:30 PM, Maya we n t to the plot when Murari La l asked his family members to h umiliate her and asked her t o leave the place. Girdhari torn h er clothes and Anil pushed he r on the chest. Balwant pulled he r hair. They started abusing her. He further stated that she w a s threatened to be killed. Th e complainant then stated that he also reached there and aske d Girdhari, Anil, Balwant etc. w h y they were misbehaving wit h his wife, They threatened to k ill him also. The complainan t called the police telephonically. The police reached there withi n 15-20 minutes and his wife Maya Devi, mother and th e complainant and Anil and Yo g esh were taken to the polic e station. It is clear from t h e statements made by th e complainant that in the state m ent made before the police, h e had alleged the role of Anil, B alwant and Girdhari only wh o were abusing and misbehavi n g with his wife on asking b y accused Murari Lal but the role of remaining accused who gav e kicks and fist blows to the co m plainant and his wife was no t mentioned in that statement d ated 20.05.2000. Then, in hi s cross examination, he stated th a t Anil Kumar pushed her to th e ground and torn her clothes. In this statement, he did no t allege the role of Girdhari and B alwant.
13. Then, another eye witness of the incident i.e. the allege d victim namely Maya Devi who is the wife of the complainan t has got examined as PW1 in preliminary evidence. She state d
SUNENA 2024.11.11 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
that when she along with her h usband had gone to the plot i n dispute Murari Lal, Anil, Girdh a ri, Balwant, Yogender, Yogesh, Lalita and Saroj came there and started abusing her. Ani l pressed her chest whereas G irdhari and Balwant torn he r clothes and pushed her to the g round. The people got collecte d there namely Bhori Devi, Ram N iwas, Chandan, Bishamber an d Narender rescued her. When B rijpal was helping her Yogesh, Yogender, Lalita and Saroj ga v e him blows. Then, in her pre - charge evidence, she stated t hat Murari Lal, Girdhari, Anil, Balwant, Yogender, Yogesh, Sa r oj and Lalita pushed her on he r chest. Girdhari and Balwant made her fell to the ground an d torn her clothes. Saroj abused h er. All of them had beaten th e complainant with lathis. Ram Niwas, Girdhari, Yogesh an d Yogender came and rescu e d them. Considering bot h the statements there is discre p ancies in the statements mad e by the complainant and his wif e . Regarding the presence of th e complainant in her preliminar y evidence, she stated that he r chest was pressed by accused A nil whereas in her pre-charg e evidence it was stated that she was pushed on chest by Murar i Lal, Girdhari, Anil, Balwant, Yo g esh, Yogender, Saroj and Lalita. Maya Devi also moved a compl a int to the SP, Rewari which ha s been proved as Ex.Pl in which she stated that Anil pushed o n her chest whereas Girdhari an d Balwant torn her clothes an d started doing obscene acts. T hey also hurled caste base d abuses. When,she made the n oise, Brijpal, Ram Niwas an d Hitesh along with other perso n came there and rescued her. The accused persons were ho l ding jelly and dandas in thei r hands. Perusal of this complai n t reveals that no where May a Devi had mentioned the presen c e of her husband at the time o f occurrence. Even the name o f the persons who rescued he r f rom the accused were differ e nt and it did not include th e
SUNENA 2024.11.11 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
persons who were being examined in the preliminary evidenc e or pre-charge evidence.
14. Ram Niwas was got ex a mined as PW3 in pre-charg e evidence of the complainant w h ereas this witness was nowher e mentioned or got examined in preliminary evidence. Thi s witness stated in pre-charge e vidence that the complainan t and his wife were present at his plot in dispute When th e accused persons came there a nd started abusing them. Ani l pushed complainant's wife M a ya Devi on her chest and he r clothes got torn. Then, all the a ccused persons started beatin g the complainant and his wife. Bhori Devi etc. came there fo r rescue and separated the part i es. The said witness also gav e the statement to the police w h ich was proved by defence a s Ex.D-7 in which he stated tha t when he reached the place o f occurrence, he heard the nois e and stopped. He noticed tha t Murari Lal, Girdhari, Anil, Balw a nt, Yogesh and Yogender wer e quarreling with Maya Devi. Sa r oj and Lalita were having stick s in their hands and were hurling caste based abuses. Then, bot h the parties got separated. T h ere are discrepancies in th e statement of the witnesses. As he did not state the role of Ani l in pushing the chest of May a Devi or role of Balwant an d Girdhari in torning her clo t hes. Moreover, this witnes s admitted in cross examinati o n that he had moved th e complaint against one of the accused Girdhari who was go t acquitted in that matter. This w itness also stated that he neve r gave any statement to the p olice. Then, another witnes s namely Sunder was examine d as PW1. In his preliminar y evidence, he stated that he not i ced that a dispute was going o n between complainant and his wife on the one side and th e accused persons on the othe r . Murari Lal asked his famil y members to hurl the caste bas e d abuses and Girdhari, Balwan t and Anil torn her clothes and denuded her. Then, in his pre -
SUNENA 2024.11.11 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
charge evidence, he stated tha t Anil pushed Maya Devi on he r chest and all the accused perso n s torn her clothes. This witnes s had not stated anywhere that o ne of the accused persons ha d also beaten up the complaina n t. Even his role was not in th e mentioned in the whole occur r ence. Rather, he also improve d his version by stating that Anil p ushed her on her chest.
15. Then, Bhori Devi was also t h e witness who was examined i n preliminary evidence as PW2 a n d pre-charge evidence as PW5. She in her preliminary evidenc e had stated that Anil, Balwant, Girdhari started beating Maya a nd torn her clothes. They gav e her caste based abuses. Yoges h , Ravinder also started beatin g her along with Saroj and Lalita. Whereas in pre-charg e evidence, she also improved h e r version and stated that Ani l pushed her chest and torn he r clothes and then all of the m abused her and beaten her up.
16. Perusal of the testimonies of the above mentione d witnesses reveals that the ther e are lot of improvements mad e in the version earlier given by t h e Maya Devi as a complainan t before the police and the p r esent complaint filed by he r husband namely Brijpal after t h e delay of three months. Ther e are also discrepancies regardi n g the presence of the police a t the place of occurrence as a M a ya Devi stated that police neve r reached the place of occurren c e whereas Brijpal contradicte d her version. The complainant a s well as her wife Maya Dev i admitted the fact that there w a s no medical evidence to prov e the fact that they were being beaten up as the complainan t and his wife were never got m edically examined despite th e f act that Maya Devi stated in her cross examination that ther e were signs of slaps and beating s on her body after the incident. Even she had not produced h e r torn clothes in the court no r given to the police. Then, ther e was also the improvement o f
SUNENA 2024.11.11 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
the version made by the comp l ainant regarding the names o f the persons present at the pl a ce. The complainant had go t different persons examined be fo re the police officials and the n changed the witnesses even i n the preliminary evidence an d pre-charge evidence. Chandan who was the brother of th e complainant was got examin e d in preliminary evidence bu t was not present in pre-charge evidence. No doubt the disput e took place between the partie s at the plot which is a dispute d property however, it cannot b e stated at whose provocation, the dispute arose. The compla i nant himself stated that whe n he and his wife reached the p l ace of occurrence, the accuse d persons were already there. H e also stated that the plot i n dispute was being encroached b y them. In these circumstances, the act of the complainant's w ife to collect the bricks over i t could be provocative. Even the perusal of the sale deed on th e f ile reveals that the complainant's wife had purchased merely a share in the suit property and i t was her duty to file the suit fo r partition to get the possession o f the same. In her statement i n civil litigation pending betwee n the parties titled as Murari La l Vs. Maya Devi, the complaina n t's wife stated that the disput e arose when she had gone to the plot for taking possession. Regarding the other allegation s made by Maya Devi like pullin g her clothes pushing her chest a n d hurling caste related abuses, it has already been obser v ed that there were severa l discrepancies and contradictions between the statements give n by the witnesses from time to t i me. So, in these circumstances, the statements cannot be relie d upon if they are not consisten t enough to build up story of o c currence on similar lines. Thi s court has reached the conclu s ion that the complainant ha s f ailed to bring home t h e guilt of the accuse d persons. Accordingly, giving b e nefit of doubt to them, th e
SUNENA 2024.11.11 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
accused persons are acquitted of the charges leveled agains t them. File be consigned to reco r d room after due compliance.”
(Emphasis mine )
controvert t h e aforesaid facts and findings.
11. I n view of the abov e , the present application i s
dismissed .
07.11.2024 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No
SUNENA 2024.11.11 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal against acquittal in a complaint case under Sections 148, 149, 323, 354, 506 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act should be granted despite lack of medical evidence, delay and wi
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Brijpal
Murari Lal & Others
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
