Ikbal Singh vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 7139 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 81                                                                                                                             
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 71 of 1997
 
Appellant :- Iqbal Singh 
 
Rspondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for appellant :- B.Sahai Panday, Subhash chandra singh 
 
Counsel for Respondent /State :- A.G.A. Sri Shushil Kumar
 
Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.

01. The instant Criminal Appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 17.01.1997 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur in Special Case No. 61 of 1993 (State Vs. Iqbal Singh), under Section 324 I.P.C. and 3(1) (X) SC/ST Act, Police Station Azim Nagar, District Rampur whereby learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant merely under Section 324 I.P.C. and awarded sentence of six months R.I.

02. In nutshell, the prosecution story is that injured Trimal Singh, (complainant) orally informed to the P.S. Azeem Nagar, Rampur that on 06.04.1993, at about 10-11 a.m. when he reached at his field he found accused Iqbal Singh and Mahendra Singh reaping harvest of wheat in his field. The accused appellant had Chhuri. When Trimal Singh resisted them from cutting wheat, accused appellant assaulted him by sharp edged ''Chhuri' on his right arm. He also abused him in his caste name, saying "Chamatte Chala ja". On receiving the information, the same was entered into kayami G.D., and in Chik. An FIR, Ext. Ka- 1 was registered on the same day at 11.45 a.m. at P.S. Azeem Nagar, District Rampur.

03. The injured Trimal Singh was sent to District Hospital, Rampur for medico legal examination where Dr. R.K. Tandan Pw- 6 conducted his medical examination.

04. Injuries:- During medical examination of injured Trimal Singh, PW-6 Dr. R.K. Tandan found the following injuries on the person of injured Trimal Singh:-

(1) Incised wound 09 cm X 01 cm x muscle deep on the front and outer aspect of right upper arm, 07 cm below from right shoulder joint.

(2) Incised wound 06 cm X ½ cm. X muscle deep on the outer aspect of upper arm 01 cm below front from injury No.1.

(3) Contusion 04 cm X 04 cm. on the back of right hand, kept under observation. Adv. X-ray.

Opinion:- In the opinion of Pw- 6 Dr. R.K. Tandon Injury No. (1) and (2) are simple in nature, caused by sharp edged weapon. Injury No. (3) is caused by Hard & blunt object, kept under observation, Adv. X-ray, Duration of the injuries were fresh.

05. The investigation officer (hereinafter referred as I.O.), after collecting the credible and clinching material and evidence, showing the complicity of the accused/ appellant in the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act submitted the charge sheet under sections 324 IPC and under section 3(1) (X) SC/ST Act. The learned special sessions judge took the cognizance of the case and proceeded trail.

06. Learned Special Additional Sessions Judge, framed, charges against the accused/ appellant Iqbal Singh under Section 324 IPC and 3(1) (X) SC/ST Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused/ appellant. He abjured the charges and pleaded "not guilty" and "claimed to be tried".

07. To bring charges home, prosecution examined, 7 witnesses as under:-

S.L.No.

Name of witnesses

Pw. No.

Pati Ram

Pw- 1

Tilak Ram

Pw- 2

Ram Singh

Pw- 3

Har Prashad

Pw- 4

Trimal Singh

Pw- 5

Dr. R. K Tandon

Pw- 6

S.I. Hemraj Singh

Pw- 7

08. In Support of ocular version, following documents were also filed and proved by the prosecution-

S.L.No.

Particulars

Ext. No.

Proved By

First Information Report ( F.I.R.)

Ex. Ka- 1

Pw- 5

Injury Report

Ext.Ka- 2

Pw- 6

Carbon Copy G.D.

Ext.Ka- 3

Pw- 7

Site Plan

Ext. Ka-4

Pw- 7

Charge Sheet

Ext.Ka- 5

Pw- 7

09. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused and analysed the evidence on record.

10. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of the accused Iqbal Singh was recorded, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In his statement he denied the prosecution story. It was stated by the accused that prosecution witnesses are false. The police in connivance and inkling with complainant, have falsely implicated him in the present case, due to enmity. He also denied by causing any injury by any weapon. He also denied that he did not abused the injured using the words of his caste. However, he admitted that injured Trimal Singh belongs to a scheduled caste. He also stated that the prosecution witnesses has not supported its story. They are telling a lie, witnesses gave statement due to enmity and to harass him in its defence version the accused has stated that he took the land of Shabita Rani on lease ''Batai' in which he has sowed the wheat which he was reaping complainant Trimal Singh abused him and in an intoxicated state.

11. The accused/ Appellant did not adduce any evidence ocular or documentary, in defence.

12. On the basis of above evidence, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Iqbal Singh under Section 324 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1) (X) SC/ST Act by the impugned judgement dated 17.01.1997. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed he impugned judgement on various grounds.

13. On the basis of the abovestated evidence the learned A.G.A. has argued that independent prosecution witnesses especially the injured Pw-5 Trimal Singh has fully supported the prosecution case. Medical evidence also supported the ocular evidence. About the statements of the witnesses, he stated that their evidences are wrong. He also stated that witnesses have given evidence due to enmity and for his harassment. In defence, he stated that he took the land of Sabita Rani on 'Batai' in which he had sowed wheat which was cutting by labour. Trimal Singh abused him and his labour in intoxicated condition. Keeping in view the entirety of evidence prosecution proved its case beyond doubts. However, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently opposed the argument advanced by learned A.G.A. Referring the evidence on record learned counsel for appellant put-forth several arguments in defence.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that no independent eye witness has supported the prosecution case. Prosecution witnesses denied the truthfulness of the prosecution case. Barring the statement of Pw- 5 the injured. In this behalf, it may be mentioned that PW-1 Patiram, PW-2 Tilak Ram, PW-3 Ram Singh, PW-4 Har Prasad who are said to be the witnesses of facts and independent witnesses. As a matter of course, all these witnesses has stated that on the date and time, as stated in prosecution case, they were not present at the place of occurrence and at that time they were in their homes, they do not went to reap the harvest in any field and no such incident occurred in front of them. It may also be submitted that the prosecution has declared them hostile. In cross-examination by learned A.P.O he stated that the I.O. has not recorded his statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Thus, these witnesses in no way supported the prosecution case. Learned Trial Court has not properly assess the prosecution and the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court are bad in law and the impugned judgment is not sustained and the accused deserves acquittal of charge levelled against him.

15. Per contra learned AGA refuted the argument submitted by learned counsel for defence. He argued that even the hostile witnesses have their credibility prosecution witnesses has established prosecution version. Medical evidence also corroborated ocular evidence. There is no contradiction in the statement of Pw - 5 and prosecution case stands proved and all reasonable doubts, learned Trial Court has very rightly assess the evidence on record and very rightly convicted and sentenced the accused.

16. In order to appreciate to charges levelled against the appellant, it is imperative to deal with the evidence on record.

17. To substantiate prosecution examined PW 1 Pati Ram, PW 2 Tilak Ram, PW 4 Har Prashad, as eye witnesses of facts. But in their examination they have not supported the prosecution version. The prosecution has declared them hostile. It is an established law that in all cases of hostile witnesses, their evidence could not be discorded as a whole. Therefore, evidence such hostile witnesses be carefully scrutinized. In the present case, all the four witnesses mentioned above, either denied their presence at the time of occurrence on the spot or showed their ignorance about the happening the alleged incident, as stated in prosecution version. Even nothing could be elicited in their cross examination, which could support the persecution case. Thus, these witnesses do not help the prosecution story.

18. Prosecution has also examined the injured Trimal Singh as Pw-5. He has deposed that on 06.04.1993, at about 10-11 a.m. when he reached his field, he found accused Iqbal Singh and Mahendra Singh, reaping his harvest of wheat. The accused appellant was having Chhuri. When he resisted them from cutting the wheat, accused appellant assaulted him by ''Chhuri' and caused injuries on his right arm. He also abused him, by saying "Chamatte Chala ja". Thereafter he reached at P.S. riding by cycle of his son Shiv Kumar and by oral dictation lodged the FIR and put his thumb impression on it. He was taken to hospital, where he was medically examined. He is Jatav, by caste and accused is Thakur. In his cross-examination he stated that the field pertaining to place of occurrence falls in Gata No. 47. In his field accused has sown the wheat forcibly. He denied the defence case, put in the form of suggestion that Savita Rani has given this field to accused Iqbal on lease ''Theka'. At the time of incident his son Shiv Kumar @ Kalua was harvest service in ''Swarn Singh's Dera' which is about 0.75 k.m. from the place of occurrence. Shiv Kumar was not present at the field. At that time Iqbal and Mahendra Singh were reaping harvest in the field, and not their labour. He also denied the suggestion that he along with his son reached after the incident. At Swarn Peer House where FIR was manufactured and wherein falsely implicated the accused. He also stated that it is wrong to say that he implicated the accused due to enmity.

20. Pw- 6 Dr. R.K. Tandon conducted medico legal of injured Trimal Singh and found three injuries on the body of the injured. He said that the injury report was prepared by him in his own hand writing and signature. Thus, he proved the injury report as Ext. Ka- 2. However, in his cross-examination he admitted that injury nos. 1 and 2 may be manufactured by any sharp edged weapon and injury no. 3 is possible if injured fell on some blunt object.

21. Pw- 7 S.I. Hemraj Singh has deposed that on this fateful day but he was posted at P.S. Azeem Nagar alongwith C.C. Sher Singh. The Kaimi G.D., the carbon copy of which is on record, is in hand writing and signature of C.C. Sher Singh. He proved it as Ext. Ka- 3. He was entrusted with the investigation of the case. He stated that during investigation he prepared the map of the scene of occurrence in his own hand writing and signature at the pointing out of complainant, and after duly investigation he has submitted charge sheet against the accused Iqbal Singh in his own hand writing and signature. He proved the charge sheet on record as Ext. Ka- 5. Thus, it proved it as Ext. Ka- 4 and recorded the statement of prosecution witnesses.

22. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the accused appellant has been falsely implicated due to enmity and there is no reliable and credible evidence against the accused/ appellant. In this regard, it may be mentioned that the defence could not point out any enmity with the complainant injured. It axiomatic that enmity is a double edged weapon which, on the one hand may be the real cause of incident and sometimes may be a strong motive for false implication of the accused, on the other hand. Thus, success of defence will depend on the merits of each case.

23. In the present case, as has been discussed above the independent eye witnesses has not supported the prosecution version and they have been declared hostile. Prosecution cross-examined then but it could not find out anything, on the basis of which their statement could not be believed so far as the evidence of Pw- 5 injured Trimal Singh is concerned, in absence of any corroborative evidence it does not seems believable even medical evidence does not support his statement. Dr. in his statement has stated that injury nos. 1 and 2 are simple and may be manufactured by some sharp object and injury no. 3 is possible to come by falling on hard place. It is also noteworthy that all these three injuries are on the right arm of the victim and he has suffered no injury, on any other part of his person. This creates doubts about the truthfulness of prosecution version.

24. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there was a dispute in respect of the ownership or possession of the disputed field or lease holdership (batai) of the field, owing to which the incident ensued. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the issue of Batai was at the bottom of the enmity, which culminated into appellant's false prosecution. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the argument of the appellant seems to have weight. Thus, learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in reaching at the conclusion of conviction of the appellant u/s 324 I.P.C.

25. The prosecution has failed to adduce any trustworthy evidence in substantiation of the charge under Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act. In the first place prosecution has not adduced any evidence about the caste of the victim. Pw- 5 Trimal Singh has only stated "chamatte chala ja" but his statement has not been supported by any independent witness. It may also be mentioned that the incident occurred 10-11 a.m. in the morning. Pw- 5 the victim has admitted that at that time only the accused Iqbal Singh and Mahender Singh were present at the spot. Moreover, the said filed cannot be said to be a public place. This, much statement could not manifest that the appellant has any intention of insulting him. Even if taken as it is, no other witness has corroborated this version of prosecution. Thus, prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case in this behalf, beyond shadow of doubt. Learned trial court has very rightly concluded that the charge u/s 3(1) X SC/ST Act is not established.

26. In these circumstance the solitary evidence could not be trustworthy in absence of any corroboration. The learned trial court erred in assessment of the whole gamut of evidence and conclusion drawn by the learned trial judge is not sustainable in the eye of law.

27. On the basis of above discussion, it follows that learned Sessions Judge erred in drawing the correct conclusion. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Resultantly appeal is liable to be allowed.

28. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, judgement and order dated 17.01.1997 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur in Special Case No. 61 of 1993 is set aside. If the accused is not in jail in any other case, he be set free at one, his sureties stands discharged.

29. The lower court record be transmitted for necessary action.

Order Date:-28.09.2022

Israr