IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.520 of 1996 Decided on : December 3, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Amar Singh and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 11th June, 1996, of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, whereby respondent No.1 Amar Singh and his son respondent No.2 Padam Chand, who were tried for offences, under Sections 452, 307, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution may be summed up thus. Respondent Amar Singh and injured Ami Chand (PW-4) have been having old enmity. Civil litigation has been going on between them, with respect to some landed property. Also, several criminal cases have been got registered by both the sides, against each other. On Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 18th June, 1994, when PW-4 Ami Chand and his brother PW-5 Gopesh were getting ready at the Dogri of PW-4 Ami Chand in village Karchhaili for going to village Kashani to attend the marriage of their niece, respondents allegedly trespassed into the Dogri. They were armed with sticks Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-3. Both of them assaulted PW-4 Ami Chand with sticks and caused injuries on his head and left arm. Injury on the head started bleeding and PW-4 Ami Chand became unconscious. Thereafter, the respondents left the scene, threatening that they would kill PW-4 Ami Chand. After some time, PW-4 Ami Chand regained consciousness and he and his brother PW-5 Gopesh left for village Kashani to attend the marriage. When they reached at a point 2 kms away from their Dogri, the two respondents emerged from the nearby forest and pounced upon PW-4 Ami Chand. Both PW-4 Ami Chand and PW-5 Gopesh ran into the nearby Dogri of PW-6 Jagdesh to save their lives. They were followed by the two respondents. PW-6 Jagdev intervened and saved the two brothers. PW-4 Ami Chand and PW-5 Gopesh then returned to their village Karchhaili and from there they went to Police Station, Rohru, and lodged FIR Ex. PW-4/A. 3. PW-4 Ami Chand was taken to the Hospital by the police. He was medically examined by PW-1 Dr. Prem Machhan, who is related to him. He noticed three injuries on his person. Their description is as follows: …3… “1. Lacerated wound (3cm x 1cm x 0.5cm) over vertix in the mid line. Wound was bleeding profusely. Wound was stitched and dressing was done. 2. There was contusion and abrasion over left elbow posteriorly. Bright red in colour. 3. Avulsed wound over left little finger 1cm x 1 cm. Wound was bleeding.” He gave the opinion that injury No.1 could have been dangerous to life had it been inflicted with a little more force or if timely medical aid to stop bleeding was not provided. However, all the injuries were opined to be simple in nature. 4. Police challaned both the respondents, under Sections 452 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Judicial Magistrate, in whose Court the report was filed, committed the case to the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge assigned the case to the Additional Sessions Judge, who charged the respondents, under Sections 452, 307, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and on their pleading not guilty tried them for the said offences. 5. Prosecution examined PW-4 Ami Chand, his brother PW-5 Gopesh and his wife PW-2 Geeta Devi to prove the allegation that PW-4 Ami Chand was assaulted by the two respondents twice, once in his Dogri and second time on the way to village Kashani. Prosecution also examined PW-6 Jagdev, who turned hostile. 6. PW-4 Ami Chand, his wife PW-2 Geeta Devi and his brother PW-5 Gopesh stated that around 5 or 5.30 a.m., …4… on 18th June, 1994, when they were getting ready to go to the marriage of their niece, both the respondents came to their Dogri, armed with sticks Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-3, assaulted PW-4 Ami Chand and caused injuries on his head and left arm. None of them stated that PW-4 Ami Chand became unconscious, as recorded in the FIR. However, all of them stated that the blood that flowed from the injury on the head fell on the shirt that PW-4 Ami Chand was wearing. That shirt was produced in the Court and the same is Ex. P-1. PW-4 Ami Chand stated that he started for the marriage wearing the same shirt. It appears quite improbable that a man would leave his house to attend a marriage, in a different village, wearing a blood stained shirt and with fresh bleeding injury on his head. 7. Also, we find contradiction in the testimony of PW-4 Ami Chand and his wife PW-2 Geeta Devi about the room of their Dogri, in which the assault took place. According to PW-2 Geeta Devi, PW-4 Ami Chand was assaulted in the room, which is just opposite the door of the verandah surrounding all the four rooms, on the first floor. However, PW-4 Ami Chand stated that he was not assaulted in the room facing the door of the verandah. Site plan Ex. PW-7/C also belies the statement of PW-2 Geeta Devi. 8. Prosecution version that the two brothers were again assaulted, when they were proceeding to village Kashani to attend the marriage of their niece, also does not …5… inspire confidence. PW-4 Ami Chand very categorically stated that no injury was caused to him, when he was assaulted on way to village Kashani and that the two respondents only grappled with him. Now, if the intention of the respondents was to kill PW-4 Ami Chand, they would not have let him go, just after grappling. PW-6 Jagdev does not corroborate them. He denies that the two brothers ran into his Dogri to escape assault by the respondents or that he intervened and prevented the respondents from causing physical harm to PW-4 Ami Chand. 9. PW-1 Dr. Prem Machhan, who conducted the medical examination of PW-4 Ami Chand, is his relative, per his own deposition. His opinion is biased on the face of it. There was only a simple lacerated wound, measuring 3cm x 1cm x 0.5cm, on the scalp and he has given the opinion that this wound could have been fatal had it been inflicted with some more force. This is a strange kind of opinion. The opinion itself suggests that the doctor wanted to help the injured. For the foregoing reasons, we see no justification for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J December 3, 2009(sd) ( Surinder Singh ), J