IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.376 of 1998 Decided on : May 15, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Roshan Lal …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General, and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Ms Nidhi Chawla, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 18th May, 1998 of learned Sessions Court, whereby respondent Roshan Lal, who was tried for an offence, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. 2. Prosecution’s case, which led to the trial of the respondent, is that on 16th November, 1993, deceased Bhandaru Ram, accompanied by his wife Rattni Devi (PW-1), was returning to his house in village Jukhala, after attending a social function at the house of his brother-in- law in village Assa Majri. They were carrying their three children with them. When the couple reached near village Narari, respondent Roshan Lal accosted them. He started hurling abuses at PW-1 Rattni Devi, wife of deceased Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Bhandaru Ram, and also gave her a push. When deceased Bhandaru Ram asked him about his untoward behaviour, he picked up a stone and hit the deceased on the pinna of the left ear. Deceased sustained a bleeding injury. PW-1 Rattni Devi raised alarm, hearing which Prem Lal (PW-4) reached the spot. He saw the respondent present on the spot. Deceased Bhandaru Ram fell on the ground. His mother and elder brother’s wife also came to the spot, on hearing cries of PW-1 Rattni Devi. He was carried to his house in village Jukhala. His brother Sukh Ram (PW-8), who had gone to Assa Majri to attend the aforesaid function and was still there, was called. He took the injured to the Police Station, where report was lodged by deceased Bhandaru Ram at 2.45 a.m. His report was entered in the Rojnamcha. Copy of the relevant entry is Ex. PW-8/A. 3. Injured was taken to the hospital at Jukhala, where initial medical aid was provided. From there he was referred to District Hospital Bilaspur, where he breathed his last, on 19th November, 1993. 4. Postmortem was conducted by PW-5 Dr. A.K. Soni, who noticed the following ante-mortem injuries: “1. There was evidence of incised wound of upper half of the left ear (Pinna) to which 7 white thread stitches have been applied. 2. There was evidence of a small haemotoma formation on the under surface of the scalp over the right parietal bone. The blood …3… haemotoma was about 10-15 ml. in amount. 3. On reflexion of the scalp there was no evidence of any fracture or fissure on the skull bone. 4. On opening up the voult, there was evidence of subdural haemotoma, equivalent to about 30-40 ml of blood. It was situated on the both cerebral hemispheres in posterior 1/3rd. 5. There was evidence of multiple small peticheal haemorrhages in the brain substance. There was no evidence of pontine haemorrhage. 6. There was evidence of gross oedema (swelling) of the brain matter (both the cerebral hemispheres.” Doctor gave the opinion that the injury No.1 was sufficient to cause death and it could have been caused by a stone, like Ex. P-3. 5. During the course of investigation, police recovered stone Ex. P-3. On completion of investigation, respondent was challaned. He was charged by the trial Court with offence, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty and was, therefore, put on trial. 6. Prosecution examined PW-1 Rattni Devi, wife of the deceased, PW-2 Ajudhya Devi, mother of the deceased, PW-4 Prem Lal, who allegedly reached the spot on hearing the alarm raised by PW-1 Rattni Devi, PW-8 Sukh Ram, a brother of the deceased and three …4… doctors, namely PW-5 Dr. A.K. Soni, who conducted the postmortem, PW-6 Dr. Vinod Kashyap, who provided first aid and conducted the medico legal examination and PW-7 Dr. N.K. Sankhyan, who X-rayed inured part of deceased’s person. 7. Respondent took the plea that on the relevant evening deceased was heavily drunk and that he started abusing him, when he passed by him and that thereafter he chased him upto a distance of 100-150 yards and in that process he fell down. 8. Trial Court has acquitted the respondent, holding that the ocular version of the incident, as testified by Rattni Devi (PW-1), Prem Lal (PW-4) and given to the police by the deceased himself, vide report Ex. PW-8/A, does not reconcile with the nature of the injury and the medical evidence. 9. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General as also the learned counsel representing the respondent and gone through the record. 10. The earliest version given by the deceased to the police about 6-7 hours after the occurrence, in the form of report, copy Ex. PW-8/A, is to the effect that the respondent had hit the deceased with a sharp-edged weapon. PW-8 Sukh Ram, the brother of the deceased, also testified that he had been told by the deceased that he …5… was hit by the respondent with some sharp object. However, mother of the deceased, PW-2 Ajudhya Devi, who reached the spot on hearing the cries of PW-1 Rattni Devi, stated that the deceased told her that he had been hit by the respondent with a stone. 11. PW-6 Dr. Vinod Kashyap stated that the deceased was having only one incised wound on the left ear, measuring 4 cm, with clear margins, when he was brought to the hospital and that he applied 14 stitches to close the wound. In the cross-examination, he stated that the injury, with a stone, like Ex. P-3, was possible only if the stone was hurled from a distance of more than 10 feet and not otherwise. 12. Report lodged by the deceased with the police, copy Ex. PW-8/A, which is relevant under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, is to the effect that he was dealt a blow of a sharp-edged weapon, which implies that he was not hit by any object hurled at him. That means the injury had not been caused by means of stone Ex. P-3. 13. It has come in the evidence that the deceased had been given a push by the respondent, when he had been quarreling with him and chasing him. Reference in this behalf may be made to statement of PW-4 Prem Lal. It is quite possible that as a result of push given by the respondent, deceased fell on some sharp-edged stone or …6… other object and sustained the injury. PW-1 Rattni Devi has admitted in her cross-examination that several other stones, besides Ex.P-3, were there on the spot, when the police came there and seized stone Ex. P-3. In view of the above discussed evidence, it cannot be said with certainty that the deceased was hit by the respondent with stone Ex. P-3, by flinging it at him and because of that the deceased sustained fatal injury. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J May 15, 2010(sd) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J