State vs. Mange Ram & Subhash. Offences u/s 323,324,452 read with section 34 IPC.

6 years ago

I am plantiff in this case. Copy of judgement is attached. I want advise for filing appeal against judgement of SDJM. And also want to know time limitation. Plantiff: Manish Jain S/o Subhash Jain Eye Witness: Rishabh Jain (Brother of Manish Jain) Accused: Mange Ram S/o Mahavir Prashad, Subhash Nai S/o Mahavir, Mahavir Prashad S/o Devidutt, Anmol S/o Mange Ram.
The brief facts of prosecution are that on 01.11.2015, the
police was on patrolling duty when a telephonic information was
received that Manish son of Subhash has been admitted in General
Hospital, Siwani after suffering injuries in a scuffle. Police reached the
hospital and recorded the statement of injured Manish who submitted
that on 01.11.2015 at about 6:00/6:10 p.m., he was in his shop when
accused Mange Ram son of Mahabir Prasad came to his shop and
caught hold of the complainant from his neck and started beating him
up.
Thereafter, the complainant was dragged in the street by the
accused. Thereafter, Mange Ram's son namely Anmol and his father
Mahabir reached on the spot. Accused Mange gave him a knife blow.
In the meanwhile, Subhash Nai also reached on the spot who had an
iron rod (saria) measuring 2 feet in his hand and started beating up the
complainant.
The complainant fell on the ground.
Complainant's
brother Rishabh called his father Subhash after hearing the noise and he
was taken to hospital by his brother and father. On the basis of this
information a case under sections 323, 324, 452 read with section 34 of
Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused.
3.
On the basis of the above complaint, present case was
registered against the accused. Police conducted the investigation. The
accused were arrested. Site plan of the place of occurrence was
(Jasbir)
SDJM, Siwani.
Dt. 10.04.2018State versus Mange Ram and another
3
prepared. After completion of usual formalities of investigation, police
report as per the provisions of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. was prepared
and put up in the Court for trial of the accused.
4.
Copies of challan and accompanying documents was
supplied to the accused free of cost as required under Section 207 IPC.
On having been found a prima facie case punishable under sections
323, 324, 452 read with section 34 of IPC and section 25/54/59 of Arms
Act. The accused were charge sheeted accordingly. In reply thereto,
they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5.
In order to prove its allegations against the accused,
prosecution has examined seven witnesses.
6.
Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide court order
dated 17.02.2018 as the prosecution has availed sufficient effective
opportunities.
7.
Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C were
recorded in which the accused have stated that they have been falsely
implicated in this case but opted not to lead any defence evidence. The
defence evidence was closed vide joint statement of the accused dated
10.04.2018.
8.
I have heard the learned APP for the State as well as learned
defence counsel. Learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel
(Jasbir)
SDJM, Siwani.
Dt. 10.04.2018State versus Mange Ram and another
4
for the complainant has vehemently argued that prosecution has proved
its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. It is argued that the
complainant was badly beaten up by the accused and this fact has been
proved before the Court by defence itself when the learned defence
counsel has put a suggestion to complainant Manish examined as PW1
in his cross-examination that accused Subhash was beaten up by
complainant and his brother Rishabh and his father Subhash. Thus, the
occurrence of the incident has been admitted as on 01.11.2015.
Further, it is argued that eyewitness Rishabh examined as PW4 has also
fully corroborated the case of the prosecution who was present on the
spot. The investigating officer Ramesh Kumar examined as PW2 has
proved the recovery of knife used by accused Mange Ram during the
scuffle. It is also argued that the injuries suffered by the complainant
have also been proved by Dr.Keshav Solanki examined as PW7.
Further, it is argued that minor discrepancies if any, occurred during the
prosecution evidence, do not affect the merits of the present case as
prosecution has proved its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt
and the accused are liable to be convicted under sections 323, 324, 452
read with section 34 of IPC and section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act.
9.
The learned defence counsel has vehemently argued that
the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused
(Jasbir)
SDJM, Siwani.
Dt. 10.04.2018State versus Mange Ram and another
5
because the present complaint is an outcome of personal rivalry
between the parties. It is argued that the shop of accused as well as of
the complainant are just opposite each other and it is the habit of the
complainant to dispose of the garbage in front of the shop of the
accused. Due to this, many times arguments have taken place between
the parties and earlier, a calendra under sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. was
also filed against the complainant. It is argued that the perusal of
present complaint Ex.PW1/A itself shows that the complainant has put
forward a false and concocted story as according to him, he was present
in his shop when accused Mange Ram entered his shop and started
beating him up. It is nowhere mentioned that accused Mange Ram was
armed with a knife at that time. Thereafter, complainant states that his
brother Rishabh after hearing the noise of scuffle called their father
Subhash. This means that Rishabh was not present at the spot and he
has been wrongfully mentioned as an eyewitness. It is also argued that
strangely, the alleged scuffle had taken place at 6:15 p.m. as mentioned
by the complainant but investigating officer HC Ramesh examined as
PW2 states that he received the information about this scuffle at about
5:00/5:30 p.m. Further, it is argued that the investigating officer after
recovering the alleged knife from the accused had not sealed the same
and moreover, no rough sketch of the knife was prepared. In recovery
(Jasbir)
SDJM, Siwani.
Dt. 10.04.2018State versus Mange Ram and another
6
memo Ex.PW2/F, it has been mentioned that the butt of knife was 10
inches long and blade of the knife was 7.5 inches long, whereas in his
cross-examination, HC Ramesh states that the length of knife was 10
cms. The knife was measured before the Court and the length of same
was 18 cms. Moreover, no recovery of alleged saria has taken place
from the custody of accused Subhash.
It is also argued that the
complainant in the FIR has not mentioned about any specific injury but
he has generally stated that he was given a knife blow by accused
Mange Ram and that he was beaten up with a saria by accused
Subhash. The doctor who conducted the medico-legal examination of
the complainant, has been examined as PW7 but in his examination-in-
chief he has not specified the injuries suffered by the complainant and
moreover, as per Ex.PW2/E, the doctor had handed over a pulanda
containing vest of the complainant to the police but no mention of the
same has been made in the evidence of the doctor above stated. It is
argued that the injuries suffered by the complainant are caused by
himself only in order to implicate the accused. It is also argued that
PW4 Rishabh and PW5 Subhash have stated in their cross-
examinations that there was no rivalry between the accused and
complainant then there was no motive for the accused to indulge in the
scuffle. In these circumstances, the accused are liable to be acquitted.
(Jasbir)
SDJM, Siwani.
Dt. 10.04.2018State versus Mange Ram and another
7
10.
I have carefully heard the learned defence counsel as well
as learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the
complainant. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses. The
complainant Manish, who has been examined as PW1, in his complaint
Ex.PW1/A states that he was present in his shop on 01.11.2015 at about
6:10 p.m. when accused Mange Ram entered his shop and caught hold
of him from his neck.
Thereafter, the complainant was allegedly
dragged in the street by the accused. Till this time, the complainant
does not mention anything about the presence of his brother Rishabh in
the shop neither he mentions that accused Mange Ram was armed with
a knife when he allegedly entered the shop of the complainant.
Thereafter, the complainant states that when his brother Rishabh heard
the noise, he called up his father Shri Subhash. In this way, neither
Rishabh nor Subhash examined as PW4 and PW5 can be termed as
eyewitnesses. Proceeding further, the investigating officer HC Ramesh
Kumar who has been examined as PW2 during his cross-examination
mentions that the knife allegedly used by accused Mange Ram was 10
cms long whereas same was measured in the Court Room and the
length of the knife was found to be 18 cms. It is pertinent to mention
here that as per the investigating officer, the knife was not sealed in a
pulanda after recovering the same from the possession of accused
(Jasbir)
SDJM, Siwani.
Dt. 10.04.2018State versus Mange Ram and another
8
Mange Ram. No rough sketch of the knife was also prepared in order
to ascertain that the knife allegedly used by accused Mange Ram and
the one produced before the court were the same. It is also not out of
place to mention here that the saria allegedly used by accused Subhash
has also not been recovered by the police. A close perusal of the
version of FIR shows that the complainant does not give any
description of the injuries suffered by him but he has generally stated
that he was given a knife blow by accused Mange Ram and was beaten
up by accused Subhash with a saria. It is nowhere mentioned that on
which part of his body the complainant was attacked by the accused.
Further, it is also strange that as per the prosecution version, the alleged
scuffle had taken place at about 6:10 p.m. which lasted for 5-10
minutes and the accused reached the hospital at 6:25 p.m. As per
Ex.PW2/E, the doctor who conducted medico-legal examination of
complainant had handed over a pulanda containing vest of the
complainant to the police but no mention of the same has been made by
Dr.Keshav Solanki examined as PW7. The doctor concerned does not
give any specific detail of the injuries suffered by the complainant
during his examination before the Court. It is also pertinent to mention
here that no diagram of the injuries suffered by the complainant was
prepared by the doctor. Moreover, there has to be a motive behind the
(Jasbir)
SDJM, Siwani.
Dt. 10.04.2018State versus Mange Ram and another
9
alleged scuffle but neither the complainant nor his brother and father
mention about any motive behind this incident. According to testimony
of PW4 HC Ramesh, statement of Constable Anoop Singh was
recorded on 01.11.2015 but no such statement is on the case file. In
these circumstances, it can be stated that there are material
discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses due to which
the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of
reasonable doubt. Hence, I found force in the arguments of learned
defence counsel.
Therefore, accused are hereby acquitted of the
charges leveled against them by extending benefit of doubt. Their bail
bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. Case property, if any, be
dealt with, in accordance with law. File be consigned to records after
due compliance.
Pronounced in open Court:
10.04.2018.
(UID No. HR0302)

(Jasbir)
Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Siwani.
Note: All nine pages of this judgment have been checked and signed by
me.

No defence evidence is present and the same is closed by the
accused vide their joint statement. Arguments heard. Now to come up
after lunch for orders.
Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Order pronounced. Vide my separate judgment of even date,
accused are hereby acquitted of the charges leveled against them by
extending benefit of doubt. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand
discharged. Case property, if any, be dealt with, in accordance with
law. File be consigned to records after due compliance.
Pronounced in open Court:
10.04.2018.