IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.515 of 1996 Decided on : November 17, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Nardev and others …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 Respondents : Mr. Y. Paul, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J(Oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 18th September, 1995, of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby respondents Nardev, Janam Singh, Chhotu Ram, Ramesh Chand, Bihari Lal and Chuhru Ram, who were tried for offences, under Sections 147, 326, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, stand acquitted. 2. Prosecution’s case, as per evidence on record, is like this. On 13th November, 1993, it was Diwali. When PW-1 Sikander, his father PW-2 Pritam Chand and other members of their family were taking their evening meals, around 8 p.m., they heard cries of a girl. They came out Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… and saw that the girl was Babli (PW-10), a niece of PW-1 Sikander, who, on enquiry, told that she had been kicked by one of the respondents, namely Chhotu. When PW-1 Sikander and other members of his father’s family were making enquiries with PW-10 Babli, all the respondents came there and attacked them. Respondent Nardev dealt a blow with a dagger in the abdomen of PW-1 Sikander, while respondent Janam Singh dealt a blow of another dagger in the abdomen of PW-2 Pritam Chand. Thereafter, all the respondents ran away. 3. PW-1 Sikander and PW-2 Pritam Chand were taken to the Hospital, as the injuries sustained by them were of serious nature. Police was informed and PW-11 SI Kali Dass went to the Hospital and recorded statement Ex. PW-1/A of PW-1 Sikander. On the basis of the said statement, case was formally registered vide FIR Ex. PW-8/A. Both the injured were medically examined by PW-5 Dr. Sunil Sood. He noticed one stab wound in the abdomen of each of the abovenamed two witnesses. Injuries were opined to be grievous and dangerous to life, in case of both the witnesses, by PW-9 Dr. D.N. Chadha, who conducted surgery. 4. Prosecution examined PW-1 Sikander, PW-2 Pritam Chand (both injured), PW-3 Gian Chand, PW-4 Surinder Chand and PW-10 Babli to prove the incident. Respondents did not deny the occurrence, but stated that …3… the complainant party was the aggressor. They stated that when they were lighting the lamps, PW-1 Sikander jumped over a wall and hit the platter, on which the lamps had been placed and that he was followed by PW-2 Pritam Chand and other members of their family and all of them were armed with Dandas and attacked them. They stated that two of them, namely Nardev and Chhotu, sustained injuries on their heads and another, namely Ramesh Chand, sustained injury on his nose and that they too were got medically examined by the police on that very night and the aforesaid injuries were noticed on their persons, per medico legal certificates Exts. D-3, D-5 and D-6. They stated that they acted in self defence and that had they not used any force, the complainant side might have killed them. 5. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 6. Two of the respondents, namely Nardev and Chhotu, were found having injuries on their persons, including head, when examined by PW-5 Dr. Sunil Sood, on the very night of the alleged incident. Nardev was having a lacerated wound on the scalp in the frontal area, measuring 1” x ¼”, with clotted blood. He was having another lacerated wound on the scalp in the parietal region, measuring 1½”x ¼” curved interiorly. There was also an injury on his thigh. Respondent Chhotu was having two …4… lacerated wounds, one measuring 1”x 1/10” and another measuring 1’x ¼” on the scalp in the frontal area, besides a lacerated wound on the right shoulder and two bruises, one on the back and the other on the right side of the back and tenderness of the left knee. Respondent Ramesh Chand was having 1½”x ¼” lacerated wound on the middle of the nose. 7. Prosecution did not offer any explanation as to how the respondents sustained these injuries. In the absence of any explanation from the side of the prosecution, it can legitimately be presumed that the injuries were sustained by the respondents in the manner they pleaded before the trial Court. 8. Defence plea is also supported, to some extent, by the niece of PW-1 Sikander, namely PW-10 Babli, whose kicking by one of the respondents allegedly led to the incident. The witness denied that she had been beaten up by any of the respondents or was kicked. Also, we find contradictions in the statements of PW-1 Sikander, PW-2 Pritam Chand, PW-3 Gian Chand and PW-4 Surinder Chand, with regard to the alleged assault on PW-10 Babli. Some of them stated that she had been kicked, others stated that she had been dealt fist blows. 9. From the medical evidence, in the form of testimony of PW-9 Dr. D.N. Chadha, it is clear that this is not a case of attempt to murder, as the doctor gave the …5… opinion that the injuries were grievous, on account of their being dangerous to life. An injury, which is dangerous to life, is a grievous injury, per clause Eighthly of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the abovestated position, we do not think this to be a fit case for interference with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J November 17, 2009(sd) ( Surinder Singh ), J