Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ravinder Kumar Alias Jindu vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 13 August, 2021
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
.
ON THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 133 of 2009
Between:-
1. RAVINDER KUMAR ALIAS JINDU,
SON OF KISHORI LAL,
R/O VILLAGE KUTHER,
P.O DHANOTU, POLICE STATION
SHAHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA,
H.P.
2. KISHORI LAL
SON OF SHRI BHAGAT RAM,
R/O VILLAGE KUTHER, P.O
DHANOTU, POLICE STATION
SHAHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA,
H.P.
........ PETITIONERS.
(BY SH. RAJESH MANDHOTRA, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.
.....RESPONDENT
(BY. SH. HEMANT VAID, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERAL)
RESERVED ON: 5TH AUGUST, 2021
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:-
ORDER
(for short "the accused") became
.
The petitioners
charged for the commission of offences constituted under
Sections 452, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
and, with respect to the afore drawn charge against the accused,
the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months
alongwith fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to
further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month ,
for, charge drawn under Section 452 of I.P.C readwith Section 34
of IPC. The learned trial Court further sentenced the accused to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months
alongwith fine of Rs. 500/-, and, in default of payment of fine, it
sentenced the accused to further undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of 15 days , for, charge drawn under Section 324 of
IPC readwith Section 34 of IPC.
2. Being aggrieved from the verdict of conviction, and,
consequent therewith imposed sentences (supra), hence
recorded by the learned trial Court, the accused preferred
Criminal Appeal No. 6-D/2006, before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.
.
Upon the afore appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
made a verdict hence dismissing the appeal filed before it by the
accused, and obviously hence maintained and affirmed the
verdict drawn by the learned trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.12.2004 at
about 7.15 p.m. at village Kuther, the complainant Saroop Kumar
was present in his shop when accused Ravinder Kumar came.
The complainant asked him to give his money for the goods
being supplied to the accused in the morning. Upon this, the
accused Ravinder Kumar went to his house and returned back
with his father. Accused Ravinder Kumar gave a darat blow to
the complainant on his left hand. The complainant then raised
alarm, on which Kishori Lal s/o Chunni Lal and Vinod Kumar son
of Dev Raj came into the spot and rescued the complainant.
Accused Ravinder Kumar gave a drat blow on the left side of
Kishori Lal. It was also stated that the accused were also having
a cycle chain with which they gave blow to Kishori Lal. Thereafter
the complainant lodged an FIR with the police Station concerned.
Both the complainant and Kishori Lal were medically examined.
After completion of investigation, the relevant challan was
.
prepared and presented before the Court.
3 (A). The FIR, as, lodged qua the ill-fated occurrence, is,
embodied in Ex. PW-5/A. For proving the narrations carried
therein, the prosecution ensured, the, stepping into the witness
box, of, PW-1 (Kishori Lal), PW-2 (Vinod Kumar) and PW-4
(Saroop Singh). The afore PWs in their respective testifications
carried in their respective examination(s)-in-chief, rendered a
vivid and graphic ocular account, vis-à-vis, the ill-fated
occurrence, as, carried in the FIR (supra). The afore PWs, during
their respective cross-examination(s), did not make any
exculpatory echoings, vis-a,vis, the accused. Moreover, in their
respective cross-examination(s) they did not make any gross
improvements or embellishments upon their respectively
recorded previous statements in writing. Consequently, when the
depositions of the PWs (supra) are free from any taint or
blemishes of any inter-se or intra-se contradictions, therefore, this
Court becomes enjoined to mete the absolutest credence thereto.
4. Moreover, all the afore PWs, completely denied, the
suggestion as became put to them, by the learned defence
counsel, that the ill-fated occurrence did not take place at the
.
relevant time. They also denied the suggestion, as became
meted to them, that Darat borne in Ex. P-1, and, cycle Chain
borne in Ex. P-2, recovered through memo Ex. PW-1/A,
becoming never used by the accused in theirs inflicting injuries
upon Saroop Kumar, and, upon Kishori Lal.
5. Be that as it may, the afore ocular account with
respect to the genesis of the prosecution case, gathers support
from the medical evidence, as, testified by PW-3 (Dr. Arun
Gupta), who, upon, his stepping into the witness box, proved the
apposite MLC(s) drawn with respect to Saroop Kumar and Kishori
lal, MLC(s) whereof are respectively borne in Ex. PW-3/A, and, in
Ex. PW-3/D. He also proved X-Ray form borne in Ex. PW-3/B,
and, X-Ray Films borne in Ex. PW-3/C. He also testified that the
injuries existing on the persons concerned, being causable
through user, on the relevant injured portions of the examinees
concerned, of, the incriminatory weapon(s) of offence.
6. Since, from a reading of the testification of PW-3, an
obvious inference, ensues that the injuries borne on the person(s)
of both Saroop Singh and Kishori Lal, are causable through user
of weapon(s) of offence upon their respective person(s).
.
Therefore, the medical evidence testified by PW-3, does
reiteratedly, and completely underscores the guilt of the accused,
in, the charged offences.
7. The investigating Officer while stepping, into the
witness box as PW-5 (SI/SHO Mohinder Singh), has proven his
recovering the weapon(s) of offence, through memo Ex. PW-1/A.
Though PW-5 was subjected to the ordeal of a rigorous cross-
examination by the learned defence counsel, however, the
learned defence counsel was unable to elicit from PW-5, any
echoing that the handing over of the afore incriminatory
weapon(s) of offence to him by the complainant, being concocted
or invented. Therefore, the learned defence counsel has not been
able to prove that the afore recoveries of the incriminatory
weapon(s) of offence were either invented or concocted.
8. Significantly, since the medical evidence, and, the
credible ocular account (supra), becomes rendered with
completest firmness hence respectively by the medical specialist
concerned, as well as, by the ocular witnesses to the occurrence.
Therefore, even if the incriminatory weapon(s) of offence were
handed over by the complainant, to the Investigating Officer, and,
.
the latter thereafter through memo Ex. PW-1/A hence recovered
them, would not bring any conclusion, that hence per-se, rather
their proven user becoming completely eclipsed.
9. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended with much vigour, before this Court, that since the
complainant has testified that the afore weapon(s) of offence
belong to him, whereupon the factum of their user by the accused
becomes eroded, and, also brings forth a further inference that
the genesis of the prosecution case, that the accused had
entered in the shop of the complainant, with theirs carrying, the,
incriminatory items also becomes completely waned. However,
the afore made submission, cannot be accepted by this Court, as
the afore factum becomes generated, from the factum of after his,
evidently snatching the incriminatory weapon(s) of offence, from
the hands of the accused, his keeping them in his custody, and,
hence making an admission that they belong to him. The afore
drawn inference by this Court is valid, as thereupon, the inter-se
consonance(s) would occur, vis-à-vis, the afore drawn inference
hence anchored, upon the afore alluded credible ocular account,
as well, as, credible medical account, as, become with respect to
.
the genesis of the prosecution case. Therefore, the afore made
submission is rejected.
10. In sequel the present petition is dismissed, and, the
impugned judgment is maintained and affirmed. Moreover, it is
workable only, vis-à-vis, the accused/petitioner No.1 Ravinder
Kumar, as, rthe petition instituted at the instance of
accused/petitioner No.2 Kishori Lal is ordered to be abated
through an order recorded by this Court on 19.9.2016. All
pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
13th August, 2021 (Sureshwar Thakur),
(priti) Judge.
