IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.134 of 1998 Decided on : March 18, 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. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Anoop Chitkara & Ms Nidhi Chawla, Advocates. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 11th September, 1997, of learned Sessions Court, whereby respondent Roshan Lal, who was tried for offence, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. 2. A case was registered against the respondent on a report made by PW-1 Balbir Singh, per which on 19th March, 1996, around 9.30 p.m., when he went to the house of the respondent, who was his friend, he found that the respondent was lying in his room in drunken State and when he (Balbir Singh) wanted to talk to him, he started abusing him and asked him to leave and threatened that in case he did not leave immediately he would shoot him with his gun. PW-1 Balbir Singh further reported that Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… respondent Roshan Lal, being his friend, he did not even think that he (respondent) would be firing at him, but the later picked up his gun and fired a shot at him, which hit him in the abdomen. 3. Case was registered by the police. Injured was taken to the hospital at Nahan, where he was medically examined by PW-5 Dr. Sanjay Sharma. From Nahan hospital, Balbir Singh was taken to PGI, because he required immediate surgery. He was operated upon at the PGI. Respondent was also taken to the hospital. Doctor opined that he had consumed liquor, though he was found to be well oriented to time and space. 4. Prosecution examined the injured and the doctor, who conducted his medico legal examination and provided him treatment, and two more witnesses, namely PW-2 Naginder Pal and one Bhim Singh (PW-3) to prove the charge. 5. Respondent took the plea that when he was present at his house, PW-1 Balbir Singh (injured) accompanied by his brother-in-law PW-2 Naginder Pal came there and demanded liquor and when he refused, they started beating him and Naginder Pal picked up his gun, which was lying in his room, and the said gun went off accidentally and PW-1 Balbir Singh got injured. 6. Trial Court has accepted the defence plea, in view of the fact that a large number of injuries were found …3… on the person of the respondent, which were fresh and the prosecution had offered no explanation therefor. Trial Court has also noticed some contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution to pass order of acquittal. 7. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. 8. Learned Assistant Advocate General has argued that Nanginder Pal (PW-2) was not present on the spot and that his role was only to take the injured to the hospital, after the injured, who is his wife’s brother, came to his house, which is in the neighbourhood of the respondent, in an injured state and was having serious bleeding injury in his abdomen. The submission has been noticed only to be rejected. Even though PW-2 Naginder Pal and PW-1 Balbir Singh (injured) as also PW-3 Bhim Singh denied that PW-2 Naginder Singh was present on the spot, to the police in his statement, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is Ex. DA, PW-3 Bhim Singh very categorically stated, vide portion A to A, with which he was duly confronted, that when he came out on hearing commotion, he saw injured Balbir Singh and PW-2 Naginder Pal at the site of occurrence and it was thereafter that the sound of gun shot was heard. Investigating Officer of the case, namely PW-9 HC Sohan Singh, proved statement Ex. DA. …4… In view of the abovestated position as also the fact that there were 10 to 12 injures on the back and the shoulder of the respondent soon after the occurrence, which injuries, as per statement of PW-5 Dr. Sanjay Sharma were fresh, it cannot be said that the defence plea is improbable, especially when the prosecution has offered no explanation for the injuries found on the person of respondent. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J March 18, 2010(sd) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J