HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No. 211 of 1993 Reserved on: 4.3.2008 Decided on: 13.3.2008. State of Himachal Pradesh ………Appellant. Versus Shiv Lal alias Shiva ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J: This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul & Spiti at Mandi, dated 29.3.1993, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 307 IPC. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Shri Sher Singh had come to the house of Inder Singh for watching volley ball match in his school where Inder Singh, Bhardass, Khem Chand and Ravi Singh were sitting having liquor. At about 5.30/6.00 p.m., they all came to the house of one Guddi, who _______ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. used to deal in illicit liquor. The accused was found sitting in the house of said Guddi. All five of them took two more bottles of illicit liquor and drank it. After some time, they started walking together. The accused called Sher Singh, took him to the fields nearby and stabbed him in his stomach. The said Sher Singh fell on the ground and the accused ran away and he was carried by his other companions to his village and was taken to hospital Ratti where his statement was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The injury on his person was found to be dangerous to his life. On this report, a case was registered leading to the filing of the challan and trial of the respondent by the learned trial court leading to his acquittal. Heard. The submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant were that the statement of the injured himself coupled with medical evidence and other evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondent and the view taken by the learned trial court can be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. A perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution shows that this fact is very much clear that the complainant and four of his companions were taking liquor and they went to the house of Guddi in the Village where also they took illicit liquor which was served to them there. The accused was already present there. A perusal of the statement of PW-2 Sher Singh shows that when they were coming back and had reached at some distance from the house of Guddi, accused, who was earlier present in the house of Guddi, came there, took him to field and asked him not to come there again and gave a knife blow in his abdomen. No specific reason for inflicting of the injuries has been stated by PW- 2 Sher Singh. There is nothing in the statement of the prosecution witnesses including the statement of PW-2 Sher Singh that any altercation had taken place in between Sher Singh and accused in the house of Guddi where they were taking liquor. Coming to the place of occurrence, PW-2 Sher Singh has stated that he was present on the path to his village when he was called by Shiva. In his report to the police Ext.PB, he had also alleged that his companions came to the spot on hearing his cries. He gave the cause for dispute of inflicting injuries as Guddi but nothing else has been stated by him. He was confronted with his earlier statement where he had stated that when he was returning, Shiva called him and took him to the field and stabbed him meaning thereby that the occurrence has taken place in the field away from the courtyard and his other companions were present in the courtyard. According to this witness, the ground had become blood stained where he fell down and he remained lying on the ground after receipt of the injury for about 15 minutes. Therefore, the place of occurrence was in the fields and the blood stained soil from the fields should have been taken in possession to prove as to where the occurrence had taken place. On the other hand, PW-3 Roop Chand, an eye witness who was accompanying the injured at that time, has stated that they had gone for about 20-25 metres from that house when Shiva called Sher Singh saying that he had some piece of work with him and they kept on going for about 2-4 minutes. This is in contradiction to the story of the complainant that he was called by Shiva when they all were present in the courtyard of the house of Guddi. No blood stained soil was taken in possession by the I.O. which could prove that the occurrence has taken place in the courtyard or at some distance from the house of Guddi in the fields and the I.O. did not find any blood at the place pointed out by the prosecution witnesses, as discussed by the learned trial court. The prosecution had also proved a disclosure statement Ext.PC of the accused leading to the recovery of the knife from the house of the accused. PW- 3 Roop Chand had stated that the accused had been taken to his house where a knife was recovered and after recovery, the disclosure statement and the recovery memo were prepared, which were signed by them. PW-4 Ravi Singh has stated similarly and stated that the knife had been recovered from the house of Guddi and not from the house of the accused. The defence plea put up by the accused, as per the prosecution evidence, was that all the five persons including complainant were in a highly intoxicated condition having taken liquor for more than three hours and they gave beatings to the accused and PW Inder Singh had aimed a stab injury to the accused, who missed it which hit Sher Singh in the stomach and to save themselves, the companions of the complainant lodged a report against the accused. These suggestions were put to PW-2 Sher Singh which were denied by him. The learned trial court had discussed the contradictions in the statements of the witnesses regarding place of occurrence, non-recovery of the blood stained earth from the ground as well as the disclosure statement which allegedly was recorded after recovery of the knife and after referring to the contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution case had concluded that the prosecution evidence is not such which could lead to an inference that the guilt of the accused was established beyond any reasonable doubt. Keeping in view the conclusion drawn by the learned trial court in view of the contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution case, the findings recorded by the learned trial court cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court as such there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly. (V.K. Ahuja), Judge. March 13, 2008. (TILAK) (Surinder Singh), Judge.