IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 521 of 1996 Date of decision: 26.05.2010 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Parkash Chand and others … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Vijay Bhatia, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Mr. Vishav Bhushan, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 1 already dead. Per V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, dated 30.4.1996, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 307 and 498-A read with Section3 4 I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 26.7.1992, a report was lodged with the police by one Sunita Devi 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 alleging that on last Monday i.e. on 20.7.1992, ceremony in regard to ‘Kriya’ of her father-in-law had taken place in their house. She further alleged that she was sleeping in the room alongwith her husband and her Jethani Tripta Devi, respondent, came there and threw some cold substance upon her. Thereafter, she asked her to open the window, which was opened by her and she threw burning stick of matchbox on her and she caught fire. Her husband was sleeping in the room, who took her in the rain and she suffered injuries. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Sarkaghat, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge and the case was assigned to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, who tried the respondents, leading to their acquittal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, the first ground taken by the learned trial Court is that the occurrence had taken place on 20.7.1992, while the report was lodged with the police on 26.7.1992. The explanation given by the complainant as PW-1 was that she was unconscious and, therefore, she could not lodge the report. It has to be seen as to whether she has given satisfactory explanation or not in regard to the delay in question. 5. PW-1 Sunita Devi, complainant, in her statement has stated that she regained consciousness and found herself in the hospital at Hamirpur. She did not state as to when she regained consciousness at Hamirpur, since the facts of the case show that she was firstly taken to C.H.C. Baldwara, then to District Hospital Mandi, 3 from where she was shifted to District Hospital, Hamirpur. However, she is silent about the date when she regained consciousness. Her father who has been examined as PW-2 Kartar Chand, has stated that he went to District Hospital and his daughter was not in her senses at that time. However, he did not make any statement that she was unconscious at the time of admission in Mandi hospital or when she regained consciousness. He further stated that the police did not record any statement of his daughter in Mandi hospital. 6. Complainant Sunita Devi as PW-1 had made statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., in which she had alleged that her Jethani used to quarrel and demand fridge and buffalo. However, in her cross- examination, she had clearly stated that accused Parkash Chand had brought fridge prior to the occurrence. However, they were demanding money, therefore, her statement that still demand was being made of fridge appears to be not correct. She further stated that she did not lodge any report with the police or made any complaint to the local Panchayat. 7. On the other hand, there is statement of PW-4 Dr. N.K. Handa, Medical Officer, who firstly treated the injured at Community Health Centre, Baldwara and conducted medical examination of her on 21.7.1992. He observed the following injuries on the person of the complainant:- “On examination the patient was conscious alert responding to oral commands, aware of surrounding pulse was 92 per minute, respiratory rate 28 per minute, B.P. 120/72 mm of Mercury. Location of burns. (Head) excluding scalp, neck shoulder both, chest above the breast, hands both and both surfaces. Nature of burns, 4 smell of kerosene oil was present on the burnt parts. Upper portion of the synthetic suit which she was wearing at that time was shrivelled and at few points it was firmly adherent to the burnt skin in pieces. Superficial scalp hairs adjoining the face were sharivelled. Some hairs were firmly adherent to the burnt skin around the neck. Few blisters could be noticed on the face. Rest of the burnt area presented light yellow shabby appearance. Peeling of the skin distinctly present on both hands and fingers. Marked tenderness was present. The percentage of burns was about 15 to 18. Duration of burns was 0 to 6 hours. The clinical impression was 15 to 18% dermo-epidermal burns. Thereafter the patients was referred to D.H. Mandi for further management after being given preliminary treatment at C.H.C. Baldwara. …….” 8. He further stated that the injured was brought to the hospital by her husband and some other relatives. In the MLC he has clearly stated that the injured was fit to make statement, which clearly belie the testimony of the complainant that she was unconscious and she regained consciousness only in the hospital at Hamirpur. The Medical Officer has also proved the application Ext. DB submitted to him on which he gave his opinion and he has stated that he was told orally by the injured that she suffered injuries as a result of burning of stove when she had gone to kitchen to prepare milk for the child. The said statement made by her to the police has not been proved by the prosecution, if any. 9. PW-9 Dr. J.R. Azad from District Hospital, has stated that an application Ext. PE was made by the police for recording the statement of the injured and the police recorded the statement Ext. PA 5 of the injured also, which has not been proved by the writer of the statement. The statement Ext. PE proved in evidence shows that the Medical Officer had observed on 26.7.1992 at 5.40 P.M. that the patient was fit to give statement. 10. From the above discussion, it follows that the statement of the injured herself that she was unconscious till she lodged the report i.e. on 26.7.1992, does not stand substantiated from the opinions given by two Medical Officers, one on 21.7.1992 and second on 26.7.1992 that she was fit to make statement, but she did not lodge any report with the police. Her father who was examined as PW-2, had also learnt about the occurrence on the next date itself, but he did not lodge any report with the police and as such, the delay in question has not been satisfactorily explained and which rather proves fatal for the prosecution case. 11. Coming to the testimony of complainant herself as PW-1 Sunita Devi, she stated that her Jethani came to her room at 11.30 P.M., threw kerosene oil on her body and also threw burning stick of matchbox upon her. However, in cross-examination, she has stated that her Jethani had called her husband and he remained there and when he returned, he gave her beatings. On the other hand, she had lodged the report that when she was sleeping, her Jethani entered the room and there were no allegations in regard to the beatings in the report lodged with the police. The earlier version given by the injured to the police was not proved on record in regard to the facts of the case. Her solitary statement is not sufficient to prove that this kerosene oil was thrown upon her body alongwith the match stick and she suffered burn injuries. Respondent No. 1 against whom the 6 challan was also filed is already dead and allegations made by the complainant are against respondent No. 2 only and no allegations were made in regard to respondent No. 3 or the part played by her in commission of this offence. 12. The net result drawn by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution had failed to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be termed as perverse, in view of the statement of the complainant herself and delay in lodging of the report. 13. In view of the above discussion, we accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by respondents No. 2 and 3 shall stand discharged. ( R.B. Misra ), Judge ( V.K. Ahuja ), May 26, 2010 Judge (BSS) 7