IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.A. No. 145 of 1998. Decided on: 22.4.2010. ___________________________________________________________ State of H.P. … Appellant. Versus Jeet Bahadur … Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Nemo. ___________________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The accused (respondent herein), Jeet Bahadur was tried by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, H.P. for the offence under Section 326 IPC. The trial ended in acquittal. It is how that the appellant-State is in appeal before this Court under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code). Shorn of details the prosecution case was that on 4.6.1993 at about 8.00 a.m. the complainant, Shri Hari Singh lodged report with the Police Station, Manali disclosing that on the previous day (3.6.1993), the respondent had met him at Patlikuhal. There both of them took tea. Then they traveled in a three wheeler to the house of the complainant situate at a village known as ’15 Miles’. At this juncture, the respondent is said to have asked the complainant to accompany him to his house. Then both of them 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 left for the house of the respondent. There they took a local brew known as ‘Lugri’. At that time, they were also exchanging jokes with each other which led to an argument between the two. Consequently, the respondent is alleged to have started quarreling with the complainant. Thereafter, he was about to give beatings to him. However, the complainant slipped away from there at about 9.30 p.m., but the respondent followed him and attacked him with a ‘Khukhri’ and gave two blows with the same to him. The injuries suffered by the complainant started bleeding. Then he fled away from the spot scene to his house and in such attempt lost his cap and cash worth Rs. 1,070/-. According to the complainant, he could not come to lodge report to the police during the night of the occurrence due to the bleeding of head injury suffered by him. Consequently, FIR Ext. PW5/D was lodged on the next day, 4.6.1993 at 2.30 p.m. In order to bring home guilt to the respondent, the prosecution examined five witnesses in all including the complainant, Shri Hari Singh as PW-2. The learned trial Court has not believed the prosecution version and has instead taken note of the rival version about the alleged occurrence set up by the respondent to the effect that at the relevant time, the complainant had come to his house in an inebriated condition and had started taking liberties with his wife. When the respondent objected to such obnoxious and uncalled for behaviour on the part of the complainant, the latter attacked him with a ‘Khukhri’. The complainant while appearing as PW-2 has admitted in quite categorical terms that the accused had also 3 received injuries and blood was oozing out from the wounds. He has also admitted presence of the wife of the respondent at the spot scene at the material time. However, he has denied that he had misbehaved with her while under the influence of aforesaid brew ‘Lugri’ and when the respondent had tried to stop him, he had attacked him with a ‘Khukhri’. Medical witness PW-1, Dr. Ramesh Lal, who had examined the complainant vide injury report Ext. PW-1/A, had stated that he had opined injury No.2 as grievous simply for the reason that there was possibility of permanent disfiguration of face of the complainant owing to such injury. However, there are no recitals about any such apprehension of permanent disfiguration of face owing to injury No.2 in injury report Ext. PW-1/A. It being so, the statement to this effect made by PW-1, Dr. Ramesh Lal during cross-examination cannot be taken to be on its face value. Since the complainant himself admitted in no uncertain terms that the respondent had also suffered injuries during the occurrence, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have explained such injuries even if it had not subjected him to medical examination for ascertaining the origin of such injuries, but it was not done. Thus, to our mind, it is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, which goes to the root of the case and also probablises the defence version. Further more the version stated by the complainant initially to the police and the one disclosed in the court are in contradiction to each other and as such do not inspire intrinsic confidence. He had stated to the police that he had some argument with the respondent regarding the rate of stones 4 and when he came out of his house, the respondent attacked him with ‘Khukhri’. The learned trial Judge has rightly characterized this aspect of the version stated by the complainant to be highly improbable for the reason that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there could not have been any reason for the respondent to have attacked the complainant and that too with a weapon, such as ‘Khukhri’ on account of such a trifling matter. The very genesis of the prosecution case becomes highly suspect and doubtful on consideration of the testimony of PW4, Hari Singh, son of Shri Bhagat Ram, one of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, who has admitted in clear terms that the complainant had tried to molest the wife of the respondent and when the latter had tried to stop him, the quarrel had ensued in which both of them received injuries with ‘Khukhri’. It leads to the inference that the complainant himself was the wrong doer and in a way can be said to be the person responsible for the occurrence and thus, an aggressor. In such situation, the respondent had the right of private defence of his person as also the honour of his wife. For the cumulative reasons stated hereinabove, we see no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (Surjit Singh) Judge. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. April 22, 2010. (cr)