LexINDRESH KUMAR versus RAM PHAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 1 S.C.R. 185 INDRESH KUMAR v. RAM PHAL AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal Nos.125-126 of 2003) JANUARY 6, 2010 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] A B Appeal against acquittal: Conviction of appellant by trial court - Other six co-accused acquitted - High Court acquitted C appellant - Revision against the acquittal of other co- accused, dismissed - On appeal against acquittal, held: High Court did not consider the evidence of witnesses in proper perspective· - Revision against acquittal of other co-accused, dismissed without giving reasons - Matter remanded to High D Court for consideration afresh - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.218, 342, 323. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 125-126 of 2003. From the Judgment & Order dated 17. 7.2002 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 196-SB of 2001 and Criminal Revision No. 1018 of 2001. E Sushil Kumar, Navin Chawla, Rakesh Pandey, Sanjay ·F Jain, Manjit Singh (for Kamal Mohan Gupta), K.C. Rajput (for l.M. Nanavati Associates) for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. These appeals questions the G judgment of the High Court whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by one Ramphal (respondent No. 1 herein), an Inspector of Police and acquitted him of the offence punishable under Section 218, IPC. He was also acquitted of the other 185 H 186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 1 S.C.R. A offences punishable under Sections 342 and 323, IPC. He was convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal wherein as many as seven persons were tried for these offences. His other six co-accused were, however, acquitted by the Trial Court while Inspector Ramphal who is now arrayed B as the first respondent, was convicted. This judgment was challenged by him before the High Court. The acquittal of Ramphal from other offences as also the total acquittal of other six accused persons came to be challenged by lndresh Kumar, the original complainant and the appellant herein by way of a c criminal revision. The High Court in its common judgment has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 herein and has awarded him the verdict of total acquittal. At the same time, the revision filed by appellant lndresh Kumar was dismissed. Appellant lndresh Kumar now has come up before us 0 challenging the acquittal of all the accused persons including Ramphal (respondent No. 1-accused) who was acquitted by the High Court. 2. This case has a long history as well as political overtones. The appellant-complainant lndresh Kumar who was E originally examined as PW-8 came to know about the illegal detention of his father Chaman Lal Saraf and his two brothers by the Police of Kaithal. He was ordinarily residing in Jammu where he was working as a full time preacher of an organisation, namely, Rashtriya Swamsewak Sangh. On F coming to know about the illegal detention he reached Kaithal on 25.06.1992 and went to the city Police Station, Kaithal where Ramphal (respondent No. 1-accused) was the Station House Officer. He had gone there along with two of his friends. On being asked about the illegal detention of his father and the G brothers, Ramphal not only took him in custody but he was beaton up with stick not only by Ramphal but by other Police Officials also (the other six accused persons) on the asking of Ramphal. He was then taken from place to place in a Police jeep. On the next day, after the medical examination, he was H produced before the Executive Magistrate where he learnt that INDRESH KUMAR v. RAM PHAL AND ORS. 187 [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.] a total false case under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. was A registered against him on the allegations that he had fought and created ruckus at the residence of one Anil Kumar S/o Prem Chand. He was initially directed to submit a bond of his good behaviour, however, later on the Magistrate dropped the proceedings against him. Appellant lndresh Kumar then met the 8 Superintendent of Police and Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal where he filed the complaint against Ramphal (respondent No.1-accused) and his co-accused. He, thereafter, returned to Jammu. However, he returned to Kaithal on 11.07.1992 and again got himself examined where on his radiological c examination, a fracture was found on his left foot. 3. On demonstrations by a political party about the alleged police atro
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.