This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.7.1984 passed by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Rampur in S.T. No. 223 of 1983 (State vs. Gurmit Singh & 4 Others), by which the opposite party nos. 1 to 4 have been acquitted under Sections 323/324 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C.
The brief facts of this case are that PW1 Pritam Singh and the other co-accused persons reside in village-Paharpur. The land of the accused persons is situated in the northern side of the land of PW1 Pritam Singh and there is a Mendh between the field of the complainant and the accused persons. They irrigate their field by lifting water from the river which flows in the west. On 18.7.1982 at about 4:00 p.m. when Pritam and his father Tara Singh were irrigating their field, accused Gurmit Singh armed with 'Banka' Chanan Singh, Santokh Singh and Triloli Singh armed with lathi came there and asked them as to why they have stopped water to their field, they told that they have not demolished drain and it might have broken down itself due to heavy pressure of water. Accused Chanan Singh asked his son to teach them a lesson. After hurling abuses, the accused persons started assaulting Pritam Singh and his father with 'Bhala' and lathi with the intention to kill them. They also used lathi-danda in their self defence. After hearing the alarm raised by the victim, Prem Singh, Dharo, Jogdendra Singh and Santosh Singh reached at the spot and rescued them. Pritam Singh along with his father went to the police station, but the accused persons were already present there. He lodged the first information report at police station. Not satisfied with the conduct of police, they lodged a complaint against the accused persons. After recording the statements of opposite party under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as well as the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the accused persons for facing trial under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C.
Accused Chanan Singh and Triloki Singh have pleaded not guilty to the charge under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Accused Gurmit Singh and Santokh Singh have also pleaded not guilty to the charge under Section 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Accused Gurmit Singh has stated that Pritam Singh, Tara Singh, Ajit Singh and Jaspal Singh demolished his Mendh, as a result of which flow of water to his field had stopped. Pritam Singh was armed with 'Gadasa' and rest of the three accused persons were armed with lathi started assaulting him, his father and brothers. Triloki Singh used danda in self defence. Other three accused persons have reiterated the same facts in their statements.
The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined four witnesses. Pritam Singh (PW1) is the injured witness/complainant, Prem Shankar (PW2), Jogendra Singh (PW3) were the eye witnesses of the occurrence and Dr. R.S. Gangwar (PW4) who examined the injured Tara Singh.
Pritam Singh (PW1) injured has fully supported the prosecution case.
So far as PW2 Prem Shankar and PW3 Jogendra Singh are concerned, they deposed that the accused persons were assaulting Pritam Singh, his father Tara Singh with 'Ballam' and lathi. Pritam Singh used a lathi fixed with a 'Boori' (a sharp piece of iron) in his defence.
PW4 R.S. Gangwar, the Medical Officer has deposed that he examined Tara Singh. He found following injuries on his person :-
(1) Lacerated wound 4cm x 0.5cm x scalp deep right side head 8cm above right ear.
(2) Complain of pain in back of neck.
The Doctor has opined that the injuries were caused by some blunt object and were simple in nature.
He also examined Pritam Singh and found following injuries on his person.
(1) Incised wound 1.5cm x 0.5cm x muscle deep on left little finger. Placed obliquely.
(2) Contusion 11 cm x 1.05cm on back of right side chest 11cm below scapula.
According to Doctor injury no. 1 was caused by some sharp edge weapon and injury no. 2 was caused by a blunt object. Both the injuries were simple in nature. He proved the injury report as Ext. Ka-2 & Ka-3.
Learned trial court after considering all the evidence available on record acquitted the accused by the impugned judgement and order.
Aggrieved by the impugned judgement and order the complainant had filed this appeal.
Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant submitted that learned trial court while passing the impugned judgement and order has not considered the prosecution evidence properly. He also submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution version which was corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor and learned trial court has erred in passing the impugned judgement and order.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submitted that learned trial court has passed a logical judgement after analyzing the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution and no interference is required in the impugned judgement and order by this Court.
After considering the rival submissions and perusal of the lower court record, this Court feels that there is no dispute regarding date, time and place of occurrence and the factum of maar-peet was also admitted by the parties and the only point which has to be given consideration by this Court was whether the learned trial court has rightly decided who was the aggressor. On this point there are allegations leveled by the prosecution and counter allegations have been raised by the defence and the defence had set up their case that Pritam Singh, Tara Singh, Ajit Singh, Jaswant Singh and Jaspal Singh had demolished the mendh of their field and when they protested about the demolition of Mendh then four persons from the side of prosecution armed with 'Gandasa' and lathi assaulted four accused/respondents and the accused Trilok Singh used danda in his self defence.
PW1 Pritam Singh who is said to be injured has tried to support the prosecution version. PW2 Prem Shankar and PW3 Jogendra Singh has also deposed that accused/respondents has assaulted Pritam Singh his father Tara Singh with 'Ballam' and lathi and the injured Pritam Singh has also used a lathi fixed with a 'Boori' (a sharp piece of iron) in his defence.
After considering the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence, the learned trial court has opined that admittedly the plots of the parties were adjacent to each other and a common Mendh was lying between both the parties' plot and the prosecution had taken the plea that when the prosecution side was irrigating their field then water had overflown from their drain and the water had gone to the drain of the accused persons and that's why the accused persons felt agitated over this act and caused injuries to the prosecution side with 'Bhala and lathi'.
On the other hand the defence/respondents has stated that the prosecution side had demolished their Mendh, as a result of which the flow of water to the accused plot stopped. When the respondents/accused protested and tried to restore the Mendh of their field and restore the flow of water, the complainant along with other persons assaulted the respondents/accused. The learned trial court found the plea raised by the prosecution to be baseless and unfounded and on the other hand the plea raised by the respondents/accused was found to be just and proper by saying that after the Mendh was broken, the water was diverted to the plots of complainant and his accomplices. The court further opined that they were the beneficiaries inasmuch as the water meant for the field of accused persons was also coming to their fields.
Learned trial court after considering the nature of injuries sustained by the injured Gurmeet Singh, Santokh Singh, Chanan Singh and Triloki Singh acquitted them from the charges leveled against them. The trial court further held that the complainant and his three accomplices were the aggressor.
The accused Gurmeet Singh and Chanan Singh suffered grievous injuries. It has been further held that the injuries suffered by the complainant side received by them when they were stopped by the respondents/accused and in their self defence all the injuries suffered by the appellants/complainant and his side, which were very well explained. The trial court has also opined that the injuries sustained by the complainant side are quite insufficient and those can be self inflicted and the injuries sustained by the respondents/accused were serious in nature. Learned trial court has also opined that the prosecution has made improvement in their case.
After considering the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, scrutinizing the material available on record and after considering the judgment and order, this Court do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order requiring any interference by this Court.
The appeal lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Office is directed to send back the record of this appeal to the concerned court.
Copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned lower court.
Faridul.