IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.273 of 1995 Reserved On: 27.4.2009 Decided on: 4th May, 2009 State of H.P …..Appellant. VERSUS Raj Kumar & another …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Appellant: Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with S/Shri R.M.Bisht and Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate Generals For the Respondents: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. Deepak Gupta,Judge This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 5.7.1994 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra Division at Dharamshala in Sessions Case No.28-K/93 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 307, 365, 382 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Chander Shekhar, PW/1 was working as cleaner and 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes PW/5 Ashok Kumar was working as driver with Taxi No.HP-02-2398 owned by one Harish Kumar of Nagrota Bagwan. On 3.10.1992 the two accused alongwith one Shri Vikram Mehta engaged the taxi for taking them to Baldhar. When they reached Baldhar, they asked the complainant and Ashok Kumar to take them to Panch Pulian. There two accused and their companion Vikram Mehta got down from the van. They asked the complainant Chander Shekhar to accompany them. They also borrowed a rope from PW/5 Ashok Kumar. The accused stated that their motor cycle had fallen in the ‘nalla’ and they want to pull the same up. When they went into the Khad, the accused Naresh Kumar inflicted 17-18 stabs of a knife on Chander Shekhar while Vikram Mehta held him from the arms and the other accused Raj Kumar had put a rope around his neck. Due to the injuries, the complainant bled profusely and fell unconscious. He gained consciousness at night and with great difficulty went to a nearby cow-shed belonging to Sarup Chand. There he spent night. Next morning, i.e, on 4.10.1992 Sarup Chand (PW/4), owner of the cow-shed alongwith his neighbour Udho Ram (PW/2) came to the cow-shed and saw the injured. They asked him what had happened. They also intimated the parents of Chander Shekhar at Nagrota Bagwan. In the meantime, two policemen who were on patrolling duty came there and Chander Shekhar was taken to P.H.C., Nagrota Bagwan. There the statement of Chander Shekhar was recorded under Section 154, Cr.P.C (Ex.PA) and on the basis of the same, the case was registered. This is one part of the prosecution version. 3. The other part is that after stabbing Chander Shekhar, both the accused and their companion Vikram Mehta came up to the van which was parked on the road. They snatched the keys of the van from Ashok Kumar. Raj Kumar started driving the van. PW/5 Ashok Kumar, driver of the van boarded the moved van with difficulty. Raj Kumar and the other accused forcibly abducted Ashok Kumar and moved towards Dehra. At the toll-tax barrier on Dehra bridge, the vehicle was stopped. Ashok Kumar took advantage of this opportunity. He pulled the ignition key of the taxi while Raj Kumar was talking with the official-incharge of the toll tax barrier. Ashok Kumar then informed PW/6 Head Constable, Sher Singh, Incharge of the Dehra Bridge about the incident. Vikram Mehta and Rajesh Kumar managed to flee but Raj Kumar was apprehended on the spot. On the completion of the investigation, a challan was filed and both the accused were charged for having committed the aforesaid offences. The learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused. Hence the present appeal. 4. As far as PW/1 and PW/5 are concerned, they have supported the prosecution version. However, we find that there are a number of discrepancies in the prosecution story and no reliance can be places on the statements of these two witnesses. It would be pertinent to mention here that the FIR has been recorded on the basis of the statement of Chander Shekhar on 4.10.1992. However, this is not the first information which was available with the police. The first information was the information which PW/5 gave to Sher Singh at the Toll tax Barrier, Dehra Bridge. In the statement made by PW/5 to the police, there is no mention of Chander Shekhar having been left behind. If Ashok Kumar had been abducted, he would have definitely informed the police that his companion/cleaner Chander Shekhar has been left behind in the Khad near Panch Pullian. Admittedly no such complaint was made at the first instance. The statement of the police official, PW/6 Sher Singh clearly shows that Ashok Kumar never made any such a complaint to him. It is apparent that a new story was concocted and the FIR was registered on the next day only with a view to create evidence. 5. It is also important to note that according to PW/4 Sarup Chand and PW/2 Udho Ram after they had discovered the complainant Chander Shekhar in the cow-shed, they met PW/12 Jarnail Singh and one Head Constable Pritam Singh. They informed the two officials that Chander Shekhar was lying in the cow-shed. These police officials brought Chander Shekhar to the road-head and thereafter took him to P.H.C., Nagrota Bagwan. Admittedly Chander Shekhar was in his senses and in a fit condition to make a statement. According to the prosecution, he disclosed his identity and complete parental address to PW/4 Sarup Chand. In case an incident had happened, as is now being stated, Chander Shekhar would have informed PW/12 Jarnial Singh and Head Constable Pritam Singh about his being stabbed. Pritam Singh was not examined by the prosecution for reasons best known to it. Only Jarnail Singh was examined as PW/12. He does not say that injured made any complaint that he had been stabbed by the accused. 6. In view of above discussion, it is apparent that there are glaring contradictions in the prosecution story. There is no explanation as to why Ashok Kumar did not inform the police on 3.10.1992 itself that his companion Chander Shekhar was left behind. He did not state to the police that he had been abducted. Similarly, Chander Shekhar on the next day did not make any complaint to the police officials that he had been stabbed by the accused. The FIR was lodged on the basis of the statement of Chander Shekhar on the next day. It is apparent that this FIR has been lodged on the basis of the statement of Chander Shekhar and not on the basis of the statement made by Shri Ashok Kumar only with a view to create evidence in support of the prosecution story. It is apparent that the story has been fabricated at a later stage. 7. In view of above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 4th May, 2009 (V.K.Ahuja) (m) Judge