Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amit @ Raju vs State Of Haryana on 11 November, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
281
CRR-808-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision: November 11th, 2024
Amit @ Raju
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Renu Bala Sharma, Amicus Curiae
for the petitioner.
Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, Assistant Advocate General,
Haryana.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.
CRM-11173-2019
Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 25
days in filing the petition.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed.
Delay of 25 days in filing the petition stands condoned.
CRR-808-2019
Learned amicus for the petitioner has impugned the
judgment of conviction dated 25.01.2017 and order of sentence dated
31.01.2017 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kosli,
which was later upheld by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari,
vide judgment dated 03.12.2018.
2. In the FIR, complainant-Satinder (PW2), reported that on
09.02.20211, during the wedding celebrations of his cousin Supriya at
CRR-808-2019 (O&M) -2-
around 7:30 PM, accused-Om Prakash alias Omi along with Bhajan Lal
alias Bhajju arrived wielding iron rods. They were accompanied by 5-6
other persons, and collectively, they assaulted the complainant and his
uncle Satya Prakash, before fleeing with a bag containing the money
received during kanyadan and an additional `5500/- that the
complainant had collected as a donation for a Gaushala. The accused
also extended threats of dire consequences to the complainant and his
uncle. Responding to their cries for help, Maan Singh, Bahadur Singh,
Raj Kumar and Yogender Singh arrived at the scene and took the
injured persons to Government Hospital, Kosli, from where they were
referred to Government Hospital, Rewari.
3. Based on the above allegations, FIR No.22 was registered
on 10.02.2011 at 7:13 PM at Police Station Kosli, under Sections 148,
149, 323, 452 and 506 of the IPC. The accused was subsequently
charged, prosecuted and convicted by the trial Court, and thereafter their
conviction was also upheld by the First Appellate Court vide orders
dated 25.01.2017 and 03.12.2018 respectively. Petitioner-Amit alias
Raju was convicted and sentenced as follows:
Offence(s) u/s Period of Fine Period of sentence
sentence(s) imposed in default of
payment of fine
148 IPC R.I. for 2 years `2,000/- 2 months
323 r/w 149 IPC S.I. for 1 year `1,000/- 1 month
452 r/w 149 IPC R.I. for 3 years `5,000/- 3 months
The sentences awarded to the petitioner were ordered to be
run concurrently.
CRR-808-2019 (O&M) -3-
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following
submissions:-
(i) that the FIR was lodged more than 24 hours after the
incident, allowing ample time for possible embellishments and
fabrications. Notably, petitioner Amit's name does not appear in the
FIR, despite the incident reportedly taking place on 09.02.2011, at
around 7:30 PM, with the FIR being registered only on 10.02.2011, at
approximately 7:13 PM;
(ii) that no specific role has been assigned to petitioner in the
FIR or subsequent accounts;
(iii) that the investigation carried out by PW-10 ASI Parmanand
(Investigating Officer) and PW-13 Des Raj, failed to recover either the
stolen money or any weapon from the petitioner or any of the
co-accused. This lack of corroboration undermines the
statement/allegations levelled by the complainant and those of the other
prosecution witnesses, rendering the case of the prosecution
unsubstantiated;
(iv) that as per the allegations in the FIR, the accused stole the
kanyadan money and `5500/- collected for charity; however, the trial
Court did not frame any charges to the said effect. This omission
suggests that the alleged motive for the assault or robbery attributed to
the petitioner and co-accused was not substantiated from the beginning
of the investigation, which is why no charges for robbery/theft were
included in the FIR or the charge-sheet. Consequently, the alleged
motive for theft/robbery apparently is baseless from the outset;
CRR-808-2019 (O&M) -4-
(v) that since the primary allegation of the complainant of
theft/robbery was neither substantiated during the investigation nor
formally charged, the credibility of the entire allegations levelled by the
complainant collapses, casting doubt on the account put forth by the
prosecution and making it evident that it was a fabricated narrative;
(vi) that interestingly, the Appellate Court observed in para 24
of the impugned judgment that it was the responsibility of the accused
to demonstrate any motive that the complainant might have had to
falsely implicate the accused. This shifting of the burden of proof, rather
than resting on the prosecution to prove its case, is noteworthy and,
totally inappropriate; it is not only untenable in law but even contrary to
the well settled principles of criminal law jurisprudence as the
prosecution is required to stand on its own legs;
(vii) that in the instant case, the prosecution miserably failed to
prove its allegations against the petitioner beyond a shadow of
reasonable doubt so much so even the evidence led against the present
petitioner, even on assumptions does not prove the case of the
prosecution.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has submitted that the
petitioner has been rightly convicted by the Courts below as he along
with co-accused inflicted multiple injuries on the person of the
complainant as well as his uncle, which was duly corroborated by the
evidence led during trial. Still further, it has been submitted that no
credible evidence was led by the petitioner to explain as to why the
complainant would falsely implicate him in the present case.
CRR-808-2019 (O&M) -5-
Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner,
which is taken on record and as per which, the petitioner has already
served his sentence.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material on record.
7. A perusal of the material on record and the evidence led
reveals that the petitioner was part of an unlawful assembly comprising
of 5-6 persons, including Om Prakash alias Omi and Bhajan Lal alias
Bhajju, who collectively inflicted injuries on the complainant and his
uncle, the injured witness. Furthermore, the assembly robbed the
complainant, taking away a bag containing cash. The injuries sustained
by both, the complainant as well as injured witness Satya Parkash have
been fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the deposition of
PW-1 Dr. Chitranjan.
8. The mere statement by PW-1 Dr. Chitranjan that the
possibility of the injury resulting through a fall on a hard surface could
not be ruled out does not suffice to discredit the case of the prosecution
or disregard the incident in question. This is especially so given that the
petitioner did not lead any evidence to challenge or dismantle the
narrative of the prosecution in the said regard.
9. It is also pertinent to note that although the petitioner was
not initially named in the FIR in question and his name surfaced later
during the investigation, this factor alone would not enure to his benefit.
Since both, the complainant PW-2 and the injured witness PW-4
Satya Parkash identified the petitioner during their testimonies while
CRR-808-2019 (O&M) -6-
stepping into the witness box before the trial Court, providing
unambiguous support for the case of the prosecution. Additionally, all
material witnesses corroborated the version of the prosecution in its
entirety.
10. PW-12 Yogender Singh, another eyewitness to the incident
in question, also fully supported the case of the prosecution.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
PW Yogender Singh's testimony is unreliable due to his familial
relationship with the complainant is unconvincing and cannot be a valid
ground to disbelieve his evidence.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner persistently argued
that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the present case;
however, the onus was on him to substantiate this claim with credible
evidence, which he failed to provide. No plausible or convincing
explanation was offered by the petitioner to demonstrate why the
complainant would falsely implicate him in the instant case.
12. As a sequel to the above, this Court does not find any merit
in the present revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition stands
dismissed.
November 11th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
