IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.320 of 1996 Decided on: May 29, 2008. State of Himachal Pradesh …Appellant Versus Mastan Singh and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) State is aggrieved by the judgment of Sessions Court, whereby the respondents, who alongwith two juvenile delinquents, named Randhir and Ranjeet, were booked for offences, under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149 IPC, Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, have been acquitted. The juvenile delinquents were sent up for trial to Juvenile Justice Court at Una. The present respondents were challaned in the Court of Illauqa Magistrate, who committed the case to Sessions Court. 2. Stated in nutshell, prosecution story is as follows. Respondent Mastan Singh, who is a Construction Contractor, had purchased sand and stones etc. from PW-9 Hitesh Kumar Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… for construction of a building of Mahila Mandal. A part of the price of the aforesaid material had been paid, but a sum of Rs.2000/- remained to be paid. The money was not paid despite repeated demands. Respondent Mastan Singh told PW- 9 Hitesh Kumar that the money would be paid on 5th June, 1993. When PW-9 Hitesh Kumar went to collect the money on the aforesaid date, respondent Mastan Singh not only did not pay the money, but also hurled abuses at him and even threatened him. Similar threats were given to PW-11 Sumesh Pathania, one of the brothers of PW-9 Hitesh Kumar. On the next following day when PW-9 Hitesh Kumar was going towards the house of one Gian Singh, all the respondents and the above named two juvenile delinquents waylaid him. They started giving beatings to him and forcibly took him to their house. PW- 9 Hitesh Kumar cried for help. Attracted by his cries, his father Suresh Pathania and his two brothers PW-10 Suminder Singh and PW-11 Sumesh Pathiana rushed for his help. On seeing them coming to the rescue of Hitesh Kumar, respondent Mastan Singh picked up a muzzle loading gun and fired a shot from inside the room, through a window fitted with wire-gauze, which hit PW-10 Suminder Singh on his face, resulting in loss of three teeth and a facial injury. Then respondent Manjit Singh came out with a double barrel gun and fired a shot in the air. Gun was snatched from Manjit Singh by Sumesh and Suminder Singh. Thereafter the respondents withdrew. Suminder Singh was taken to Military Hospital at Pathankot where he was examined by PW-8 Dr. (Mrs) N. Chhabra. …3… 3. Prosecution examined, besides PW-9 Hitesh Kumar and his two brothers PW-10 Suminder Singh and PW-11 Sumesh Pathania, two independent witnesses, namely PW-1 Suresh Kumar and PW-12 Kamar Singh, to prove the charge. 4. Respondents took the plea that on the fateful day, PW-9 accompanied by his above named two brothers and father Suresh Pathania came to their house and all of them were armed with blunt and sharp edged weapons and that on seeing them their women folk consisting of Anita and Rekha shut the door of the room and bolted it from inside, but they broke the door and entered the room forcibly and started throwing out utensils and other household goods and when the ladies resisted, they were dealt blows with not only the dandas, but also with sharp edged weapons which they were carrying, due to which they received bleeding injuries. They further stated that on seeing Hitesh Kumar and his brothers in a very furious and aggressive mood, juvenile delinquent Randhir, who alongwith Ranjit was present in the house at that time, fired a gun shot through the window to scare away the above named witnesses and unfortunately the shot hit Suminder Singh, on his face. They also pleaded that the matter was reported by them to the police that very day, but the police conducted the investigation in a partisan manner. 5. Trial Court believed the defence version and consequently acquitted the respondents. 6. We have gone through the evidence and heard the learned counsel for the parties. We see no reason to disagree with the view taken by the trial Court that the defence plea is …4… probabilised by certain facts and circumstances about which there is no explanation from the side of the prosecution and also because of contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution evidence. 7. It has come in evidence that two ladies, named Anita and Rekha and one juvenile delinquent Ranjit Singh sustained injuries in the incident, in question and two injuries on the person of Anita and one injury on the person of Ranjit Singh had been caused by sharp edged weapon. Other injuries on the persons of above named two ladies and Ranjit Singh were in the nature of contusions and were opined to have been caused by some blunt weapon. These facts stand proved by the testimony of PW-7 Dr. R.K. Chaudhary and DW-1 Dr. Vijay Kumar, who conducted the medico legal examination of the above named two ladies and juvenile delinquent Ranjit Singh. Respondents reported the matter to the police on the very day of the occurrence, vide FIR No.148 of 1993. The fact is admitted by the Investigating Officer, namely PW-14 Mohinder Singh. That case was under Sections 452, 380, 147, 148 and 149 IPC. Prosecution has offered no explanation how the above named two ladies and juvenile delinquent Ranjit Singh received the injuries, referred to above. 8. It has also been admitted by the Investigating Officer of the case, namely PW-14 Mohinder Singh that door of one of the rooms was found broken when he visited the spot. Prosecution has offered no explanation how the door got broken. Respondents have claimed that the door had been broken open by the complainant party when they came armed …5… with blunt and sharp edged weapons to forcibly take away the household goods, including utensils of the respondents. In the absence of any explanation by the prosecution, there cannot be any escape from accepting the defence plea that the door was broken by the complainant party in the manner stated by the respondents. 9. It has also been admitted by PW-14 Investigating Officer Mohinder Singh that blood was there in the verandah. Site plan Ext.PL records that the blood in the verandah had fallen from the gun shot injury sustained by Suminder Singh on his face. Eye witnesses’ account of the incident, as testified by PW-9 Hitesh Kumar, PW-10 Suminder Singh, PW-11 Sumesh Pathania, PW-12 Kamar Singh and PW-1 Suresh Kumar is that PW-10 Suminder Singh received the gun shot injury when he was far away from the verandah. Presence of the blood and the mention in the site plan that the blood was from the gun shot wounds sustained by Suminder Singh fits into the defence plea that the complainant party forcibly entered the house of the respondents, by breaking upon the door, to carry away their household goods. 10. Also there is no explanation by PW-9 Hitesh Kumar and his two brothers as to why did they go to the house of respondents which is situated at a distance of 25 yards from the main passage. They had no business to be there. PW-1 Suresh Kumar appears to be a liar. He claims that he saw the incident taking place when he was on the road, which is 25 yards away from the house of the respondents. The road is at 900 angle from the house and the verandah of the respondents, …6… according to site plan Ext. PL. Verandah is in front of the rooms. The gun shot, which hit PW-11 Suminder Singh, was fired from inside the room through a wire-gauzed window. When the road where the witness was standing is at 90o angle, even the room, from which the gun shot was fired, could not have been visible from that road. Moreover, from a distance of 25 yards it could not have been possible to see into the room having a wire gauzed window and a covered verandah in front of it. 11. It is because of the aforesaid reasons that we have observed hereinabove that there is no ground for interfering with the judgment of the trial Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J. May 29, 2008, (ss) (Surinder Singh ), J.