IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.273 of 1997 Decided on : August 30, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Subhash Chand …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. 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 : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 22nd January, 1997 of the Sessions Court, whereby respondent Subhash Chand, who was tried for offences, under Sections 307 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted, State has filed the present appeal, seeking reversal of judgment of acquittal and praying for conviction of the respondent for the aforesaid offences. 2. According to the prosecution, injured Gita Devi (PW-1) and respondent Subhash Chand lived in the same building, but in separate portions thereof. Each portion has four rooms. On the night intervening 17th and 18th July, 1993, around 11.30 p.m., when Gita Devi alongwith her Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… minor children was asleep in one of the rooms occupied by her and her husband was away, in connection with his employment, respondent went there and knocked at the door. When Gita Devi asked as to who was knocking at the door, respondent responded that it was he, her Devar (husband’s younger brother). Gita Devi refused to open the door, as it was an odd hour of the night. She switched on the light. Respondent allegedly kicked the door three-four times. The door gave way. Respondent then entered the room and assaulted Gita Devi with a Chhura (dagger) and caused one skin deep injury and one muscle deep injury on the neck and few more injuries. Gita Devi raised alarm, upon hearing which respondent’s step-mother and a few more persons reached the spot. Respondent then took to heels. 3. Matter was reported to the police on the next following day at 6 p.m. by Gita Devi. Case was formally registered vide FIR Ex. PB. Injured Gita Devi was medically examined on 18th July, 1993 at 2 p.m. by PW-6 Dr. Renu Behl. Injuries were opined to have been caused by means of a sharp-edged weapon. Two of the injuries noticed by the doctor were opined to be grievous, while two others were opined to be simple. Injuries were opined to have been sustained within 18 hours of the examination. …3… 4. Case was investigated by PW-8 ASI Jai Chand. According to the Investigating Officer, a Drati (scythe) Ex. P-4 was recovered as weapon of offence, during the investigation and Gita Devi had told that it was by means of Drati Ex. P-4 that the injuries were caused to her. Investigating Officer did not find any damage to the door of the room, where injured had slept at night. 5. Defence taken by the respondent was that it was injured Gita Devi who had quarrelled that night with his family members, including his step-mother, and had tried to assault them by means of a Drati and that when he tried to disarm her, she sustained injuries with that Drati. Trial Court has accepted the defence plea and acquitted the respondent. 6. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the evidence. 7. Injured Gita Devi reported, vide report Ex. PB, that she had been caused injuries by means of a dagger. However, no dagger was recovered during the investigation and instead a Drati was recovered and the injured told the police vide statement Ex. PC, portion A to A, with which she was duly confronted that she had been caused injuries by means of a Drati. Drati and Chhura are two different weapons. The contradiction in the testimony of the injured and her statement Ex. PC, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as to the nature of the weapon, not only …4… renders the prosecution case doubtful, but also probabilises the defence version. Also, the fact that the door was not found damaged, by the Investigating Officer, creates serious doubt about the version given by the injured. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J August 30, 2010(sd) ( V.K. Sharma ), J