Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramchander vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 29 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013417
2024:PHHC:012795
250
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-2987-2018(O&M)
Date of Decision: 29.01.2024
RAMCHANDER ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. This instant revision petition has been preferred against the order
dated 05.07.2018 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice
Board (hereinafter referred to as Board), Rewari whereby, respondent no.2
(child-in-conflict with law) has been absolved of the notice of accusation
served upon himin FIR No.47 dated 18.05.2017 under Sections 323, 325, 34 of
the IPC.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner gave a statement to the
police wherein he alleged that on 07.05.2017, accused Pardeep came to his
house and gave beatings to him. Along with the said accused, three other co-
accused including respondent no.2 accompanied Pardeep in the quarrel. Due to
the said beatings, the petitioner fell unconscious and found himself to be in a
hospital when he regained his consciousness. On the basis of the statement of
the petitioner, the above-mentioned FIR was registered. Respondent no.2, who
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013417
2024:PHHC:012795
is a child-in-conflict with law, was served with the notice of accusation for
involvement in the commission of offences under Sections 323 and 325 read
with section 34 of IPC, to which he pleaded his non-involvement and claimed
inquiry.
3. The prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses to establish its
case. The material brought forward by the prosecution against respondent no.2
was put to him but he denied the allegations levelled against him and stated
that he was falsely implicated in the aforementioned case.
4. On assessing the material available on record, the learned Board
vide order dated 05.07.2018 absolved respondent No.2 from the notice of
accusation served upon him. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred
the present instant revision petition.
CONTENTIONS
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is specific
role and injury attributed to respondent No.2 in the complaint. He further
contends that observation made by the Board that no injury was suffered by the
petitioner on his face against the alleged fist blows by respondent no.2, is
wrong as MLR shows that the nose of the petitioner was swollen.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that no
unwarranted improvement was made upon his case by the petitioner and the
supplementary statement was rightly justified because the petitioner was not
fully conscious when the initial statement dated 08.05.2017 was made by him.
ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATIONS
7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing
the paper-book with his able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner was
declared fit by the concerned medical officer upon which his statement was
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013417
2024:PHHC:012795
recorded. But he did not make any specific allegtions against respondent no.2
in his initial statement to the police and rather mentioned it in his
supplementary statement that he was given fist blows on his face by respondent
no.2. Further, the eye-witness namely Ramrati (PW-3) while stating that other
accused gave beatings to the petitioner nowhere stated that respondent no.2
gave the alleged beatings upon the petitioner. Kaptan Singh (PW-2) also made
a statement similar to the one made by Ramrati. Even the perusal of the MLR
shows that no injury was suffered by the petitioner on his face except a swollen
nose. Further, the petitioner while making improvement upon his case qua his
supplementary statement, tried to justify the same by deposing that he was not
fully conscious when his initial statement (Ex. PW1/A) dated 08.05.2017 was
recorded. But the said justification falls flat after considering the opinion given
by the doctor on application (Ex. PW6/B) which shows that he was fit to make
a statement on 08.05.2017. Therefore, the observation made by the learned
Board that respondent no.2 is entitled to the benefit of doubt as the
improvements made by the prosecution witnesses are fatal to its case, stands
validated.
8. Furthermore, the power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the
order of acquittal on the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence is subject to
the settled law that where two views are possible and out of the two, one points
towards the innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused
should prevail over the other pointing towards his guilt. Furthermore, the trial
Court has the additional advantage of closely observing the prosecution
witnesses and their demeanour, while deciding about the reliability of the
version of prosecution witnesses. (See H.D. Sundara and others Vs. State of
Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.247 of 2011 decided on 26.09.2023; Kali
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013417
2024:PHHC:012795
Ram v. State of H.P., 1973 (2) SCC 808 and Chandrappa and others v.
State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415). A Division bench of this Court in the
judgment passed in State of Haryana Vs. Ankit and others bearing CRM-A
No.3 of 2022 decided on 06.07.2023 has held that presumption of innocence
further gets entrenched on the acquittal of accused by the trial Court.
CONCLUSION
9. In view of the above discussion, the present petition stands
dismissed on merit. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
January 29, 2024 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013417
4 of 4
