IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.187 of 1996 Decided on : April 28, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Madan Lal and others …Respondents. 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 Respondents : M/s Surinder Sharma, Paresh Sharma and Shivank Singh Panta, Advocates. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of acquittal, delivered by Sessions Court, in a case, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Respondents Madan Lal and others were sent up for trial for the aforesaid offences, by police. Learned Sessions Judge charged the respondents with offences, under Sections 148, 323 and 307, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge and were, therefore, tried. At the end of the trial, they were acquitted. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. Case of the prosecution, which led to the trial of the respondents, may be stated. On 12th May, 1993, Ram Pal (PW-1), riding pillion of bicycle of Pawan Kumar (PW-2), was going to his house in village Bhadsali. Around 7.30 p.m., when he reached near the field of one Diwan Chand, in village Bhadsali, a truck was found parked in the middle of the road and chaff was being unloaded from that truck. One Surinder Kumar, a Juvenile in conflict with law, against whom case was presented before Juvenile Justice Court, and respondent Subhash Chand were present on the spot. A wordy duel took place between Surinder Kumar and Ram Pal. The two then started quarrelling. PW-2 Pawan Kumar tried to intervene, but could not disengage them. In the meanwhile, other respondents also came there. All of them started giving kick and fist blows to Ram Pal (PW-1). Pawan Kumar again tried to intervene. Respondent Madan Lal picked up a mango stick lying on the spot and hit Pawan Kumar on his arm. In the meanwhile, respondent Yudhvir, employed as cleaner on the truck, from which chaff was being unloaded, brought an axe from the cabin of the truck and passed it on to respondent Rattan Chand. Rattan Chand then dealt a blow of that axe on the head of PW-1 Ram Pal, as a result of which he sustained a bleeding injury and fell down. Respondent Yudhvir then brought out an iron rod from the cabin of the truck and hit Ram Pal on his neck and back with that rod. Kishori Lal (PW-3) and one …3… Ram Kishore also reached the spot. They rescued Ram Pal and Pawan Kumar. Both of them were taken to the hospital, where they were medically examined by PW-8 Dr. S.K. Nanda. 4. Ram Pal (PW-1) was having four injuries, three of which were in the form of abrasions on the lower back and the abdomen. The fourth one was a bleeding injury on the scalp, caused by a sharp-edged weapon. 5. Pawan Kumar (PW-2) was having two abrasions, one on the right forearm and the other on the epigastric region of the abdomen. Both the injuries were simple in nature. 6. Injuries were opined to have been sustained by Ram Pal and Pawan Kumar within 4 to 6 hours. Injury on the head of Ram Pal was opined to be dangerous to life. 7. Police registered a case against the respondents and Juvenile in conflict with law (Surinder Kumar), on the basis of statement, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Ex. PE, made by Pawan Kumar (PW-2). During investigation, axe Ex. P-3 was produced by respondent Rattan Chand. It was made into a parcel and the parcel was sealed. Iron rod Ex. P-4 was produced by respondent Yudhvir. Axe Ex. P-3 and the clothes of PW-1 Ram Pal, which he was wearing at the time of the incident and which got stained with blood, i.e. vest Ex. P-1 and pants Ex. P-2, were sent to the Chemical Examiner, who …4… vide report Ex. PS gave opinion that axe had stains of human blood of ‘AB’ group and the aforesaid clothes of Ram Pal had stains of human blood of ‘O’ group. 8. Prosecution examined the two injured and Kishori Lal (PW-3), as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. It also examined the doctor, who conducted the medical examination of the two injured, namely PW-8 Dr. S.K. Nanda. Some other witnesses of formal nature were also examined. 9. Respondents took the plea that a quarrel followed by fight had taken place between Ram Pal (PW-1) and Surinder Kumar, Juvenile in conflict with law, over some trivial matter and that when the quarrel was going on, sister-in-law (brother’s wife) of Ram Pal, Maya Devi came there with an iron rod and tried to hit said Surinder Kumar with that rod, but the blow landed on the head of Ram Pal and he sustained the injury. 10. Learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the evidence of the prosecution is self-contradictory, inconsistent, and full of discrepancies and infirmities, which make the prosecution case highly doubtful. Consequently, it acquitted all the respondents. 11. We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the evidence. …5… 12. PW-2 Pawan Kumar, who lodged report with the police, by making statement Ex. PE, turned hostile. He denied that the occurrence, in the manner reported by him to the police, vide report Ex. PE, had taken place. He even denied having made statement Ex. PE to the Police. About the injuries on his own person, he stated that he had sustained the same in an accident two days prior to the occurrence. The witness is a liar, on the face of it. PW-8 Dr. S.K. Nanda, who conducted his medical examination within 4-5 hours of the occurrence, gave the opinion that the injuries appeared to have been sustained within six hours. Also, his testimony is not consistent. Therefore, neither the defence nor the prosecution can take any help from his testimony. 13. Statement of PW-1 Ram Pal cannot be believed, because it is not corroborated by the earliest version, which was given to the police or by any other evidence. Witness has stated that he was given a blow with axe Ex. P-3 on his head by respondent Rattan Chand and that the axe was supplied to him by respondent Yudhvir. 14. Axe Ex. P-3 had stains of human blood. It was sent to the Chemical Examiner. As per report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex. PS, stains of human blood were there on the axe, but the blood group was ‘AB’. Injured Ram Pal’s own blood group is ‘O’, because on his blood stained clothes, which were sent to the Chemical Examiner, …6… stains of human blood of ‘O’ group have been found, per aforesaid report Ex. PS. It may be stated that these clothes were the same, which Ram Pal was wearing at the time of the incident and on which a few drops of blood had allegedly fallen, per Ram Pal’s own statement. 15. Again, Ram Pal (PW-1) says that he was dealt blows of iron rod on his neck and back by respondent Yudhvir. However, in the FIR, there is no mention of any blows having been dealt by respondent Yudhvir, with an iron rod. Not only this, no injury was noticed on the neck or the upper back of Ram Pal by PW-8 Dr. S.K. Nanda. Abrasions were noticed only on the lower back and the abdomen. 16. Kishori Lal (PW-3) stated that on the relevant date he had attended his duty at Jajon in Punjab State upto 5 p.m. and thereafter he left Jajon for his village, as he had received a message that his mother was sick. The witness admits that his village falls between the point where he deboarded a truck and the place where the incident had taken place. He does not explain why did he go to the place of occurrence, instead of going to his house first, especially when, according to him, his mother was sick and he came to the village only on getting the message about his mother’s sickness. Also, the witness stated that the incident had taken place around 8 p.m., but the case of the prosecution is that it had taken place at 7.30 p.m. …7… Moreover, this witness is having criminal cases with many of the respondents, as admitted by him in the cross- examination. In view of the abovestated position, we do not think this to be a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J April 28, 2010(sd) ( V.K. Sharma ), J