IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. : 38 of 1999. Decided on: 18.05.2010. _________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. -Versus- Sucha Singh. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. __________________________________________________________ For the appellant : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Deepak Gupta, Judge(Oral) : This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 23.07.1998, delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, Camp Court at Nalagarh in Sessions Trial No. 9- NL/7 of 1996, whereby the accused was acquitted of having committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 12.04.1996, the statement of complainant Nathu Ram (PW-1) was recorded under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the effect that on 02.04.1996, when he was returning from the house of his in-laws, he met the accused Sucha Singh and one other person near village Bhood. The accused inflicted a 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.Yes. blow with an axe like instrument on the face of the complainant. This resulted in fracture of the jaw of the complainant and damage of his right eye. According to the complainant, he became unconscious and re-gained consciousness after many days when he was at P.G.I. On 10th April, 1996, the right eye of the complainant Nathu Ram (PW-1) was taken out by the doctor at P.G.I. The statement of the complainant Ex.-PA has been attested by one Dr. Neeraj Sood, Registrar of Department of Ophthalmology at P.G.I. On the basis of this complaint, F.I.R. Ex.-PW6/A was registered on 12.04.1996 at 2:30 P.M. According to the version given in the initial statement, none had witnessed the occurrence, except the accused, the injured and one person accompanying the accused. After recording of the F.I.R., the investigation was carried out by the Police and after investigation, report under Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code was filed and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. The accused was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been acquitted by the learned trial court and, hence, the present appeal by the State. 3. We have heard Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General on behalf of the State and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the accused, and have gone through the entire record of the case. 4. At the outset, we may note that in the initial statement, there was no mention of any person having witnessed the occurrence, except the accused, the injured and one person accompanying the accused. However, while investigating the matter, the Police recorded the statement of PW-8 Amroo to the effect that he had witnessed the occurrence. His evidence has been discarded by the learned trial Court and rightly so, because of the fact that this witness appears to be a procured witness. According to this witness, his statement was recorded by the Police on the date of occurrence, i.e., 02.04.1996 itself. As noticed above, even the F.I.R. was registered only on 12.04.1999, therefore, the question of recording the statement of this witness on 02.04.1996 did not arise. Further more, PW-9 A.S.I. Arjun Singh, the Investigating Officer has admitted that he recorded the statement of Amroo for the first time on 05.06.1996, i.e., more than two months after the occurrence. There is no reason given by this witness while appearing in court as to why he kept silent for a period of more than two months when admittedly the wife of the injured belongs to his village and he and the injured are from the same community. 5. This leaves us only with the statement of complainant Nathu Ram (PW-1). Before we deal with his statement in court, we need to advert to certain other aspects of the case, which have been referred to by the learned trial court also. It is apparent from the medico legal certificate Ex.-PW10/B which has been proved by Dr. Sanjeev Kapoor (PW-10) that the injured, complainant Nathu Ram was brought to the C.H.C., Nalagarh at 9:45 p.m. on 02.04.1996 with the alleged history of lying injured on the road. He was brought to the hospital by Kartar Singh. He had serious injuries and was referred to the P.G.I. on the same date. Injuries could have been either accidental, i.e., caused in a motor vehicle accident or on account of some fight etc.. Whatever be the reason, the Police was bound to record the fact of the injured having been found lying on the road and being taken to the hospital in the daily diary register at least, even if it was felt that no cognizable offence was made out. 6. The second aspect is that after the injured was taken to P.G.I., for ten days, no attempt was made to lodge the complaint with the Police. The version now given by the complainant as well as by the prosecution is that the complainant remained unconscious for about ten days. He re- gained consciousness only on 12.04.1996 and then his statement was recorded. This stand of the complainant is totally falsified by the statement of PW-11 Dr. Rajeev Gupta, Senior Resident, Department of Eye, P.G.I. Chandigarh, who produced the entire record and proved the injuries caused to the injured. In his cross-examination, he stated as under: “On 5th April, 1996 injured Nathu Ram was conscious when came to P.G.I. as recorded in his case summary and up to 10th April, 1996, he remained conscious. On 10th April, 1996 onwards he was conscious.” Therefore, according to this witness, the injured was conscious right from 5th April, 1996 when he was brought to P.G.I. till he was discharged. 7. Now, we take up the statement of the complainant (PW-1). This statement has material contradictions in it. The incident took place on 2nd April, 1996. In cross-examination, the witness stated that after 5-6 days of the incident, he regained consciousness. This would mean that he regained consciousness latest by 8th April, 1996.The injured also stated that the Police Officials used to come every day to P.G.I. He further stated that his statement was not recorded at P.G.I. This statement is also false in view of the fact that Ex.-PA bears the endorsement of Dr. Neeraj Sood, as mentioned hereinabove, and also a note of the Investigating Officer from the Police Post Baddi to the effect that he recorded this statement at Camp at P.G.I., Chandigarh. The injured stated that the police recorded his statement at Bhood after about 20 days of the incident. This statement is also obviously false and incorrect. 8. Even with regard to the identity of the accused, there is no cogent proof. According to the complainant, he first disclosed his name after about 10-15 days when the doctor declared him fit for making statement. According to him, he disclosed this name at village Bhood in the presence of many persons. This statement is also incorrect since in Ex.-PA, the name of the accused is given. 9. Keeping in view the contradictory statement of the injured himself, it is very difficult to rely upon the same and the defence version that the accused has been implicated at the instance of the Pradhan, on account of political rivalry, cannot be ruled out. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds are ordered to be discharged. (Deepak Gupta), Judge (Rajiv Sharma) Judge May 18, 2010. (bhupender)