IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 512 of 2005. Date of Decision: 21.5.2008 ____________________________________________________________ Ramesh Kumar Appellant. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No For the appellant : Sh. Rameshwar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Sh. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General. _________________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J. (oral). Heard and gone through the record. Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court whereby he has been convicted of offence of attempt to murder punishable under Section 307, I.P.C. and sentenced to under-go imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rupees 25,000/-, in default of payment of fine to under-go simple imprisonment for a further period of one year. Prosecution case as per evidence, led during trial, may be summoned up thus: PW1 Ashok Kumari was married to the appellant in the year 1999. It appears that the appellant is a habitual drunkard. He used to demand money from his wife Ashok Kumari (PW1) for purchase of liquor. On 28-10-2003 around 12.30 P.M, when Ashok Kumari was washing clothes at the village tap, appellant went there and demanded money. PW1 Ashok Kumari felt that he was asking for money to purchase liquor. So she Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - refused to give any money to him. This enraged the appellant. He was carrying a Darat Exhibit-P1. He hit PW1 Ashok Kumari with the Darat repeatedly, which resulted in a number of deep incised wounds. Ashok Kumari raised hue and cry. On hearing her cries, her father-in-law and her husband’s elder brother Harbans Lal (PW7) reached the spot. On seeing them, appellant ran away. Ashok Kumari (PW1) was rushed to the Government Hospital at Jawali where she was medically examined. Injuries were found to be dangerous to life. Dr. of Government Hospital, Jawali referred her to District Hospital, Dharamshala. However, she was taken to Sehgal Nursing Home at Pathankot which was closer from Jawali in comparison to District Hospital at Dharamshala. At Pathankot, she was attended upon by PW4 Dr. Rajiv Sehgal. He also gave opinion that at least one of the injuries was dangerous to life. During the course of trial, Ashok Kumari (PW1) testified that she was assaulted with Darat on the fateful day and inflicted a number of injuries on her head and other parts of the body by her husband and that she was rescued by PW8 Vipin Kumar and her husband’s elder brother Harbans Lal (PW7). Her testimony is corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Rajiv Sehgal (PW4) of Pathankot as also Dr. Aman Dua (PW5) of Civil Hospital, Jawali. Vipin Kumar (PW8) and Harbans Lal (PW7) though turned hostile, yet to some extent, their testimonies corroborate her version because both of them admitted the presence of the appellant on the spot with a Darat in his hand. Appellant also did not deny that the deceased sustained injuries by means of Darat, but he pleaded that he had climbed a tree for lopping its branches and that when he was doing the job of lopping, Darat fell from his hand and hit his wife Ashok Kumari (PW1) who was present under the tree. The plea taken by the appellant is un-believable, for the simple reason that there were as many as nine deep incised wounds on the person of Ashok - 3 - Kumari (PW1) when she was examined by Dr. Rajiv Sehgal (PW4) and Dr. Aman Dua (PW5). Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the medico legal certificates and the testimony of the Doctors did not stand connected with the appellant inasmuch as when the Doctors were in the witness box, injured Ashok Kumari (PW1) was not shown to them nor was she present in the Court and, therefore, it cannot be said that what they stated in the Court pertained to the injuries allegedly sustained by Ashok Kumari (PW1) and similarly what finds mention in the medico legal certificates issued by them also relates to the said injured. We are not convinced by this submission because the testimony of Shri S.K. Thakur Investigating Officer (PW15) who reached the Hospital at Jawali immediately on getting the telephonic information that a lady with injuries had been admitted, categorically stated that Ashok Kumari (PW1) was the injured lady and that he moved an application Exhibit PW5/A for her medical examination upon which she was examined by Dr. Aman Dua (PW5) and medico legal certificate Exhibit PW5/A was issued. This part of the testimony of the Investigating officer remained un-challenged. Similarly, the defense itself put a suggestion to Dr. Rajiv Sehgal (PW4) that the incident was narrated to him by PW1 Ashok Kumari whom the witness had treated at his hospital. This suggestion amounts to sort of admission on the part of the appellant that the testimony of the witness about the injuries noticed by him pertains to Ashok Kumari (PW1) only and to none else. Learned counsel further argued that there was nothing in the evidence suggesting that the injuries were so serious that they could have proved fatal but for the medical treatment. We are not prepared to accept this argument because there is un-challenged testimony of Dr. Aman Dua (PW5) and Dr. Rajiv Sehgal (PW4) that the injuries were dangerous to life. - 4 - In view of above said position, we find no fault with the conclusion of learned trial Court that the appellant is guilty of the offence of attempted murder, punishable under Section 307, I.P.C. Learned counsel representing the appellant has made submission for reducing the sentence. He says that the appellant was thirty-five years of age at the time of commission of the offence. He says that in fact, it is the injured herself and her children who are the sufferers, because the appellant, being the sole bread winner in the family is lodged in jail. It has come in the statement of the injured that prior to the occurrence, in question, also, the appellant was accused of the offence of attempt to murder Ashok Kumari (PW1) but that matter was finally compromised. Ashok Kumari’s testimony to the aforesaid effect was not subjected to cross-examination. Looking to this aspect of the matter, though we feel that the appellant does not deserve any leniency, at the same time, taking into account the aforesaid submission of the counsel for the appellant which may not be without substance, we reduce the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of payment of fine and imprisonment in default of payment of fine remains un-changed. With the aforesaid modification, as to the sentence of substantive imprisonment, the appeal is dismissed. Trial Court is directed to revise the warrant of commitment accordingly and send the revised warrant to the In- charge of jail concerned. (Surjit Singh) Judge. (Surinder Singh) Judge. May 21, 2008. (bm)