1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 277 of 1994.. Date of decision: 5-.5.2008 ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant. Versus- Deep Singh @ Kuldip Singh. Respondent. ___________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. P.K.Sharma, Additional Advocate General . For the respondent: : N.K. Thakur, Advocate. _________________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J. (oral). Respondent’s acquittal by the trial Magistrate in a case under Sections 452 and 326, I.P.C. has been challenged by the State in the present appeal. Report was filed against the respondent by the Police making the following allegations: On 20-2-1990, around 8-00 P.M, respondent went to the house of Lajiya Devi (PW1) when she was cooking meals. He was armed with a Drat. He aimed a blow of that Drat on the neck of Lajiya Devi (PW1) but instead of hitting her neck, it caused a wound on the left side of her cheek. He attempted another blow but the blade of the Drat hit the beam of the roof of the house as a result of which it (Drat) got broken into two pieces Exhibit P3 and P4. Then the respondent hit PW1 Lajiya Devi on her head with the handle of the broken Drat, which remained in Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 his hand. Matter was reported to the Police that very night. Police got the injured medically examined. Three injuries were noticed on her person. One of the injuries was opined to be grievous, because it caused defacement. During the course of trial, Police examined six witnesses, including PW1 injured Lajiya Devi, her husband PW2 Jaishi Ram and her husband’s brother PW3 Chuni Lal, who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. In the F.I.R. that was lodged within a couple of hours of the occurrence, copy of which is Exhibit PW1/A, it was got recorded that the weapon of offence (Drat) had been taken away from the respondent by Jaishi Ram (PW2) and one Mohammad Din who happened to be present at the house of the injured. However, during the course of trial, neither PW1 Lajiya Devi nor her husband PW2 Jaishi Ram said even a word about the presence of Mohammad Din. In fact, they made no reference of Mohammad Din in their testimony. Instead, it was stated that Chuni Lal, a brother of PW2 Jaishi Ram and his wife Kamla reached the spot on hearing the alarm raised by the injured and her husband and they assisted the injured’s husband Jaishi Ram in rescuing the injured. Chuni Lal, who appeared as PW3 did not say that when he reached the spot, respondent was still there. It is also doubtful if injured’s husband Jaishi Ram PW2 was present when the incident took place. In the F.I.R. Exhibit PW1/A even though it is recorded that he was present when the respondent appeared, but during trial it was sought to be shown that he came to his house after the accused hit the injured. Testimony of the prosecution witnesses that the Drat got broken into two pieces Exhibit P3 and P4, when the respondent aimed the second blow, is also missing in the FIR, copy Exhibit-PW1/A. No explanation for this material omission in the F.I.R. has been put-forward by the prosecution. 3 Injured introduced a new story while in the witness box. She stated that earlier at 6.00 P.M. on the day of occurrence, when she had gone to the village tap, accused respondent told her that he would be visiting her during night and then he came to her place armed with a Drat at 8.00 P.M. Nobody other than the injured, has spoken about this story nor does it find mention in the FIR. It has come in evidence, per testimony of PW3 Chuni Lal that the injured indulges in illicit distillation of liquor and its sale to the residents of the area. The Investigating Officer has admitted that eight/nine cases of illicit liquor were pending against the injured at the time when he was in the witness box. Looking to the facts and the circumstances of the case, as noticed herein above, we do not think this to be a fit case for interference in the judgment of acquittal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Surjit Singh) Judge. (Surinder Singh) Judge. May 5, 2008. (bm)