Tarlok Singh Chauhan DECISION
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
1. The appellant/accused was tried and convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.4.2004, the victim, namely, Bhutto Kapoor, resident of Village Asan Patt, Tehsil Palampur had gone to collect some revenue papers, which were to be appended along with Civil Suit regarding a boundary dispute with the appellant. After collecting these papers, the victim reached his village Asan Patt at about 9.00/9.15 P.M. and found that the appellant had kept bricks near his land. This initially led an oral altercation between the victim and the appellant. However, later on, the appellant allegedly hit a bat on the head of the victim and thereafter continued to give him beatings till the time he was eventually pushed down the Danga. As a result of this, the victim lost conscious and regained the same at about 3.00 A.M. in the intervening night of 13/14.4.2004. He then called his wife and was taken to Zonal Hospital Dharamshala, from where he was referred to PGI Chandigarh. Since the victim was unable to speak, therefore, the statement of his wife, to whom he had already revealed the entire sequence of events that had led to injuries on his person, was recorded, on the basis of which, an FIR was registered.
3. After completion of the investigation, final report, under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and presented in the Court with a prayer to take cognizance of the case to try the appellant for commission of the offence.
4. Consequently, the appellant was charged under Section 307 IPC.
5. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and upon closer of its evidence, statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The appellant also examined one witness in his defence.
6. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence so adduced before it, vide judgment dated 6.7.2006, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid, constraining him to file the instant appeal.
7. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Anand Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, that the findings recorded by the learned trial court are perverse, therefore, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, would contend that the findings of the learned trial court being in order call for no interference.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.
9. At the outset, it needs to be reiterated that there is no difference between an appeal against conviction and an appeal against acquittal except that when dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the court below is reasonable one and the conclusion re........