IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No.: 136 of 1997. Reserved on: 03.06.2010. Decided on: 17.06.2010. _________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. … Appellant. Versus Tej Lal. … Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the appellant : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Devender Chandel, Advocate vice Mr. T.R. Chandel, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The State has appealed against the judgment dated 9.4.1996 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla in Sessions Trial No.55-S/7 of 1993 whereby he has acquitted the accused of having committed the offences punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Indian Arms Act, 1959. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 21.11.1991 at about 10 a.m., PW-1 Ashok Kumar wanted to plough his field in village Panog. PW-1 had taken his pair of bullocks to his field. PW-2 Yogesh Sharma and one Smt. Dropti Devi were present with PW-1 in the field. As soon as PW-1 tried to yoke the bullocks to the plough, accused appeared from the adjoining land. He proclaimed that he will finish PW-1. He was armed with a gun. The accused aimed the gun shot at PW-1. PW-1 apprehending danger to his life hid himself behind one of his bullocks. The gun shot hit on the right side of the neck of one of the bullocks. The bullock started bleeding. PW-1 raised hue and cry. PW-4 Tara Dutt, PW-4 Bal Kishan and one Smt. Subhadra reached the spot. Thereafter, the accused ran away. PW-4, Bal Kishan telephonically informed the Station House Officer, Police Station, Shimla West at 10.30 a.m. on 21.11.1991. Statement of PW-1, Ashok Kumar was recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide Ex.PW-1/A. In sequel to statement Ex.PW-1/A, F.I.R. Ex.P-G was registered against the accused. The accused made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-5/B in the presence of PW-5 Radha Krishan and one Shiv Lal. The accused had stated that he had concealed one S.B.B.L. gun in the bushes near the field of PW-1 in village Panog and that he could get the gun recovered. Thereafter, - 3 - the gun was recovered in presence of PW-5 and one Shiv Lal. The recovered gun is Ex.P-7. The police had sent the pellets, pieces of paper Ex.P-5, empty cartridge Ex.P-6 and gun Ex.P-7 to the Chemical Examiner. The report of the Chemical Examiner is Ex.PW-9/D. The matter was investigated by the police and thereafter challan was put up against the accused. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, accused was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After trial, he was acquitted by the trial Court. Hence, this appeal by the State. 3. PW-1 Ashok Kumar has deposed that his father had appeared as a witness on behalf of Kapil Dev in civil litigation. The accused was having enmity with their family due to the reason that his father appeared as a witness on behalf of Kapil Dev. The accused used to say that in case they helped Kapil Dev, he would kill their family members. On 21.11.1991, he was in his field at about 10 a.m. and was ploughing. He heard voice of Tej Lal accused who was saying that he will take revenge from him as his father gave statement in favour of Kapil Dev. The accused was at a distance of about 50 feet from him. At that time, Dropti Devi, his aunt and his brother Yogesh Sharma were also present. He called them and hid in between the bullocks. The accused fired at him which hit one of his bullocks in the neck. - 4 - Thereafter, accused ran away from the spot. Some villagers, namely, Bal Krishan, Shiv Nand, Tara Dutt and Subhadra Devi came on the spot on hearing his hue and cries. According to him, the police reached the spot at about 1 p.m. His statement was recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In his cross-examination he has admitted that the accused did not own any gun and the gun was owned by one Shri Dharam Chand. He categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the gun was recovered by the police from the bushes on the same day and the accused was also with the police. 4. PW-2 is Yogesh Sharma, brother of PW-1. He deposed that on 21.11.1991, he was in his field with Smt. Dropti and Ashok Kumar. Ashok Kumar was fixing yoke on the bullocks. Tej Lal accused threatened that as their father has appeared as a witness against him, now the time has come to take revenge and fired towards Ashok who was hiding in between the bullocks and the fire hit one of the bullocks on the right side of the neck. On hearing the gun shot, they raised alarm upon which Smt. Subhadra, Tara Dutt and Bal Kishan came on the spot. They deputed Bal Kishan to report the matter to the police. Police reached the spot at about 10/10.30 a.m. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the accused was standing at a distance of 15/20 feet - 5 - away from the bullocks. PW-3 is Shri Tara Dutt. He deposed that he was in his ghasni with Bal Kishan and Subhadra Devi and were cutting grass on 21.11.1991. They heard noise from the field of Govind Ram and he had gone towards that direction and saw Ashok Kumar, Dropti Devi and Yogesh in the field and also saw Tej Lal accused going downwards with a gun. According to him, police reached the spot at 10.30/11 a.m. 5. PW-4 is Shri Bal Kishan. He reported the matter to the police on telephone. He corroborated the statement of PW-1. PW-5 is Shri Radha Kishan. According to him, the accused was apprehended from a distance of about 2 Kms. from the place of occurrence. The accused disclosed in his presence that he had kept the gun in the bushes which he could get recovered. In his presence, the statement of accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded by the police. The statement was signed by him. In his cross- examination, he categorically admitted that the accused was apprehended by the police in the evening on the same day and the gun was recovered after half an hour after the arrest of the accused. Doctor Ashok Kumar has issued medical certificate Ex.PW-6/A. He examined the bullock and found multiple injuries on the right side of the neck of the bullock. - 6 - 6. PW-9 has deposed that the accused was arrested on 22.11.1991 and his statement was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex.PW-5/B. The accused told him that he had concealed the gun in the bushes which he could get recovered alongwith the fired cartridge. Thereafter, the accused led the police party to the spot and got recovered the gun which he had kept in the bushes. 7. PW-1 has deposed that the accused was at a distance of about 50 feet from him, however, PW-2 deposed that the accused was at a distance of 15-20 feet away from them. PW-1 has narrated that the police came on the spot at about 1 p.m., whereas, PW-2 had deposed that the police had reached at the spot about 10-10.30 a.m. PW-3 has also deposed that the police reached the spot at about 10.30/11 a.m. According to PW-1, the gun was recovered by the police on the same day and the accused was also with the police at that time. PW-5 Radha Kishan deposed that the accused was apprehended by the police in the evening on the same day and the gun was recovered after half an hour after the arrest of the accused. It is intriguing to note that once the gun had already been recovered on the same day, where was the necessity for the accused making disclosure statement Ex.PW-5/B on the next day. PW-9 has stated that the accused was arrested on 22.11.1991. PW-5 deposed that the - 7 - accused was arrested in the evening on the same day. PW-1 has also stated that the gun was recovered by the police from the bushes on the same day and the accused was also with the police. In view of this, the disclosure statement made vide Ex.PW-5/B becomes suspect. 8. In view of inherent contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses, coupled with the fact that the recovery of the gun is suspect, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of acquittal recorded the trial Court. Consequently, we find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused/respondents are ordered to be discharged. (R.B. Misra), Judge. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 17.06.2010. (sck).