IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. : 240 of 2001. Decided on : 05.04.2011. ________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh … Appellant. Versus Hari Singh and others. … Respondents _____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G with Mr. Rajinder Dogra Addl. Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ R.B. Misra, Judge (oral). The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after the leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to the impugned judgment dated 19.8.2000, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P, in Case No.484/1 of 1996, acquitting the accused-respondents for the offence under Sections 342, 326, 324, 323, 504 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The prosecution case is that, on 25.7.1997 at about 6:45 AM, accused Surinder Singh took Smt. Shakuntla Devi (PW-2) complainant/victim in her cow shed and caused grievous hurt to her (PW-2) with darat when the complainant/victim had gone to her cow shed to feed the bullocks, at that time Hari Singh and Balwinder Singh, respondents/accused were present near the cow shed and Surinder Singh also came at that place and took her inside the cow shed and inflicted injuries on her head with the darat. Hari Singh and Balwinder Singh had also assaulted the fist blow, after receiving injuries, she had fallen down and became unconscious. Rapat Ex.PW11/A was lodged and thereafter Smt. Shakuntla Devi (PW-2) was medically examined vide MLC, Ex.PW7/D and accordingly FIR Ex.PW11/B, was registered and the accused/respondents were charged for the aforesaid offences. 3. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses, whereas the accused/respondents, through their statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C; have denied the prosecution case. 4. PW 1 Shri Mehar Singh, took Smt. Shakuntla Devi (PW-2), complainant/injured to the hospital in his Maruti Van bearing registration No. HP-23-0538 at about 10:00 AM. However, he did not know the name of lady, who carried the victim/injured (PW-2), to the hospital. 3 5. PW-2 (Smt. Shakuntla Devi, complainant/injured/victim) has stated that at about 6 :00 AM, when she had went to her cow shed to feed her bullocks and passed near the cow shed of Hari Singh, accused/respondents Hari Singh and Balwinder Singh were standing there. They quarreled and accused Surinder Singh came on the spot and caught her from her arms and took her inside the cow shed. Hari Singh and Balwinder Singh were also standing outside, whereas, Surinder Singh (accused/respondent) inflicted injuries with darat on her head. Her son, namely, Sandeep and Manjeet came there, after hearing cries of PW-2, she fell down. After receiving one injury with darat, she fell unconscious and she regained consciousness at about 3:30 PM in the hospital. As per the testimony of PW-2 when she was inflicted injury on her head by Surinder Singh, (accused/respondent), Hari Singh and Balwinder Singh were only present and none else. PW-2 (Smt. Shakuntla Devi) stated that abuses hurled on her, cannot be narrated. However, at about 3:30 PM, when she regained consciousness, statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded by the police. PW 2 has also admitted that case has been registered against her and Hari Singh and her son Sandeep Kumar, under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, which was pending for trial. She also admitted that she had filed a Criminal Complaint against Smt. Krishani wife of Hari Singh, Jamna Devi wife of Balwinder Singh, which was dismissed 4 on 21.1.1997. PW 2 has also stated that she was inflicted injury by accused/respondent Surinder Singh from the back side of the body and she sustained injuries on her head, whereas, the injury on her head was on the front portion of the head. PW 2 has denied that she had sustained injury by jumping from the tree. She had also denied that she sustained injuries by the sharp objects. 6. PW-3/Smt. Kamla Devi, the sister of PW-2 has stated that she was told about the occurrence by her son Vipin. However, nothing was mentioned in the testimony of PW-2 Smt. Shakuntla Devi about the presence of PW-3 Smt. Kamla Devi on the spot. Whereas, PW-2 has stated that when, she was assaulted by accused/respondent/Surinder Singh, only Hari Singh and Balwinder Singh were there and none else. 7. PW-4/ Shri Budhi Ram could not state about the relevant date, time and place, when PW 2 was admitted in the hospital, Bharari. Darat Ex.P3 was shown to the complainant in the hospital, vide memo Ex.PW2/C. 8. PW-5/Shri Sohan Singh has stated in his cross- examination that Smt. Shakuntla Devi (PW-2 ) is God sister of his son. PW-6/Sita Ram has also stated that his son told him about the occurrence, however, he did not seen the occurrence, therefore, his testimony is hear say, as there is no mention in the testimony of PW-2 about the presence of PW-6/Sita Ram. 5 9. PW 7 (Dr. T.S. Chandel) has medically examined Smt. Shakuntla Devi (PW 2) on 25.7.1996 and has noted the following injuries : “ i) Lacerated wound over left side of parietal region 2 cm latal to the mid line in its centre extending horizontally anteoposteriorly. The margin of the wound was sharp and taping anteriously. Size 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep. X-ray was advised to rule out any fracture. ii) Left black eye and swollen lids inside cornea and conjunctiva were normal. iii) Haemotruma over bridge of nose size 1 cm x 1 cm. Bleeding from nostrils was present. iv) Contusion over left scapular region and shoulder region tenderness present. Advised x-ray chest including left shoulder joint.” 10. In the opinion of PW 7, injury No.1 could have been caused with sharp edged weapon. As per the opinion of PW-7, injury No.1 could have caused from the left side of the victim and could have been caused from the back side and in view of statement of PW-7, weight of weapon was could not have been assessed. Injury Nos.2, 3 and 4 are possible if one falls on hard objects and injury No.1 by fall on a sharp edged object. In view of the testimony of PW-7, there were four injuries including injury No.1 which could have been caused with the darat. 6 11. PW 9/Kumari Majeet, the daughter of PW 2 (victim/complainant) has stated that she had seen the occurrence and observed inflicting the injuries. She heard the cries of her mother at about 6:45 AM. She had rushed along with her brother Sandeep Kumar at the place of occurrence. She saw their mother was unconscious on the spot, at that time accused/respondents Surinder Singh and Balwinder Singh had gone away from the place of occurrence. Accused/respondent Hari Singh was going towards the cow shed. She and her brother took their mother to the cow shed and gave her water, where her mother told PW 9 that accused/respondent Surinder Singh inflicted blow on her head and accused/respondent Hari Singh inflicted injuries on her person. In her cross- examination, PW-9 has stated that the cow shed where the occurrence had taken place is l kilometre from the residence, whereas, PW-2, victim/complainant has stated that the cow shed, where she was assaulted, was half kilometre from her house. 12. PW-10/Shri Sandeep, son of the complainant, PW-2 has stated that when he heard the noise of his mother, he visited the spot, his sister Manjeet saw their mother, who was unconscious on the spot, accused Hari Singh had gone away from the place of occurrence along with Balwinder Singh and Surinder Singh. PW-9 has stated that Hari Singh was going to cow shed, whereas, PW-10 has stated that all 7 the accused/respondents have gone away from the place of occurrence. PW-10 has stated that they saw accused persons on the way, while returning to their house. As per the testimony of PW-10, the occurrence is stated to have taken place was half kilometre away from the house of the complainant/injured. PW-2 has stated that her mother was taken to her cow shed and some “massage” (rubdown) and thereafter water was offered and she had regained unconscious and told how she was injured by Surinder Singh, thereafter she was taken to the hospital. However, PW 9 and PW-10 have not stated that no one was present, whereas many of the houses where there in the area but none came to the spot. In view of the testimony of PW 9 and PW 10, they reached the spot after hearing the cries of their mother. It appears improbable, how the prosecution witnesses PW 9 and PW 10 could have reached the spot after hearing the cries from half kilometre away, whereas none from near by the area had reached to the spot. PW-11 has placed on record rapat, Ex.PW11/A, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW11/B, was registered. PW-12 Shri Nain Singh has stated that in the year 1996, he was posted as MHC in Police Station, Bharari and has recorded rukka Ex.PW2/A, which was sent to the Police Station to SI Deep Ram, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW11/B, was registered and challan was prepared by SHO Anant Ram. 8 13. PW-13 Kumari Parmila Devi, the daughter of complainant has stated that she had witnessed the occurrence. She went to the house of victim/complainant and thereafter went to the spot, where she observed that accused Hari Singh and Balwinder Singh had inflicted injuries to PW 2 with darat, when she went to call her parents and tried to rescue the complainant from the clutches of the accused persons. The testimony of PW-9 and PW 10, who stated to be the daughter and son of the victim/complainant (PW-2), had reached the spot together firstly and had seen their mother unconscious condition. Further PW-9 and PW-10, have not indicated the presence of PW-13 on the spot. The manner of incident indicated by PW-13 was in derogation to narration given by PW-2, victim/complainant. In these circumstances, it can safely be stated that PW-3 had neither reached the spot nor she had seen the occurrence. PW-14 ASI Deep Ram has stated that he had investigated the case and when PW-2/Smt. Shakuntla Devi, was initially brought in the Police Station, she was not able to make her statement. However, she became unconscious. 14. On reappraisal of the materials prosecution witnesses, we noticed that PW-7 (Dr. T.S. Chandel) examined the victim/complainant, PW-2/Smt. Shakuntla Devi and had noticed the injuries. One of the injuries was said to have been caused by darat. Injury Nos.2, 3 and 4 said to have 9 been inflicted with the danda, fist blow or by blunt weapon. Whereas, PW-9 and PW-10 have stated in their contradiction version that there were many injuries including the injury of danda, whereas in view of the testimony of PW-10, there was 10 to 15 injuries, including the injury by danda. In view of the testimony of ocular and medical evidence of PW-7 (Dr. T.S. Chandel), all the injuries could have been caused on the sharp edged weapon. As such, version of the prosecution witness mainly PW-2, PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10, indicated that the injuries might have been inflicted by PW-2, the way which has been described. In view of the testimony of PW-2 herself none was present on the spot, when she was assaulted by Surinder Singh, accused/respondent. In her testimony, Hari Singh and Balwinder Singh, accused/respondents outside the cow shed. However, she was taken in the cow shed Hari Singh, accused/respondent was assaulted by darat. In view of the testimony of PW-2 presence of PW-9 to PW-13 are completely ruled out. In the facts and circumstances of the case, none has stated to have been seen the occurrence. 15. In our considered view also, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondents and there is no scope for interference in the impugned judgment and the criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. 10 16. Bail bonds, furnished by the accused/respondents, are hereby discharged. (R.B. Misra) Judge. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. April 5, 2011. cs