IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 447 of 2002. Date of decision: 01.04.2009 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Surender Singh alias Lovely … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baijnath, dated 20.12.2001, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 324 I.P.C. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 16.7.1998, at 10.30P.M., a report was lodged with the police by one Arun Kumar, who came to the Police Station accompanied by his mother Rani Devi and lodged a report. He stated in his report that at 9.00 P.M. today, he was sitting in his house, respondent came to his house, called him from outside and some altercation took place and gave a threat to him and thereafter inflicted a knife blow on his right leg. It was alleged that he was rescued by his mother Rani and sister Nishu Devi. On this report, a 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - case was registered and the complainant was medically examined. After investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondent as detailed above, leading to his acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The submissions made by the learned Assistant Advocate General were that there were sufficient corroboration to the testimony of the complainant/injured and as such, the findings of the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution had failed to prove their case can be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court. On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that the complainant had mentioned the facts that when he came out of his house, respondent gave knife blow after some altercation and he was rescued by his mother and sister at that time. The complainant was examined as PW-1, who reiterated the allegations made in the report lodged with the police. He denied the suggestion in regard to false implication. He admitted that the marriage of his elder sister was performed in the year 1996-97 but he denied that the respondent and his father had helped them with a sum of Rs.10,000/- and they were demanding money from the respondent, but he and his family were not returning the money, therefore, a false case was made out. It was also suggested to him that he suffered injuries with Drat while cutting trees, which suggestion was denied by him. In his report lodged with the police, he had no where mentioned that at that time one Kesho Ram and other villagers came to the spot. However, in his statement, he stated that when the accused ran away from the spot, Kesho Ram and other villagers also came to the spot. - 3 - PW-2 Nisha Devi, sister of the complainant, also stated that after the accused had run away, Kesho Ram and villagers came to the spot. But in cross-examination she came up with the statement that on hearing the noise, their neighbour Kesho Ram came to the spot and had seen him. The respondent caught hold of her brother from neck and in the presence of Kesho Ram, blow was given, though Kesho Ram had asked the accused not to do this. This clearly shows that in cross- examination she had tried to introduce PW Kesho Ram having witnessed the occurrence which was never stated by the complainant in the report lodged with the police or in Court. The said Kesho Ram when examined as PW-3 turned hostile and never stated that he had seen occurrence or came to the spot. Therefore, the statements of the complainant and his sister do not find corroboration from the testimony of the only independent witness, who may have witnessed the occurrence or had come to the spot immediately thereafter, though his presence was specifically proved from the testimony of PW-2 Nisha Devi. Apart from the above, PW-2 Nisha Devi stated that she had seen the occurrence while standing from the window of Gohar and there is nothing that she had come out of the house and had seen the blow given in the courtyard. She admitted the suggestion that at the time of marriage of her sister, the accused and his father had helped them with money and had also carried the marriage articles in their vehicle. However, she denied that they had refused to pay the said money and volunteered that this amount had been paid to them. She also denied the suggestion that her brother suffered the injury with Drat while cutting trees. She also came up with the statement in the cross-examination that her brother asked the respondent as to why they - 4 - were quarrelling. However, when the mother of the complainant appeared in the witness box as PW-7, she never stated that she asked the respondent not to quarrel. She came up with the plea that she had witnessed the occurrence while standing in the upper storey of the house where she was cooking meals earlier. Though the statement of PW-2 Nisha Devi suggests that she was standing in the ground floor and had seen the occurrence from the window. She admitted that she had not been shown the knife and the cut pant in Court. She denied the suggestion that the accused had given any money to her husband at the time of the marriage of their daughter, which fact was clearly admitted by PW-2 Nisha Devi. There are contradictions in the statement of the witnesses in regard to the presence of Kesho Ram or is having witnessed the occurrence as well as in regard to the fact if money was paid by the respondent and his father or not at the time of the marriage of the sister of the complainant. These contradictions cannot be termed as minor. This clearly shows that that may be the cause of dispute and possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. Apart from the above, the learned trial Court had also considered the contradiction in regard to the fact that the complainant had no where stated that his underwear and pant were stained with blood and there is also observation of the learned trial Court in the judgment that recovery memo Ext. PW4/B shows that the length of knife was 13 inch, whereas in the Court it was found to be only of 9 inch including 5 inch long handle. Therefore, the Court observed that this is not the same knife, which was recovered from the accused. Keeping in view the minor contradictions and other contradictions as referred to above, two view emerge and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the learned trial Court. In the facts and circumstances of the - 5 - case, the view taken by the learned trial Court cannot be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged forthwith. (V.K. Ahuja), April 01, 2009 Judge (BSS) - 6 -