IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. : 562 of 1996. Reserved on: 20.04.2010. Decided on 11.05.2010. _________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. -Versus- Narain Singh. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the appellant : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: State has come in appeal against the judgment dated 28.09.1995, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla in Sessions Trial No. 29-S/7 of 1994, whereby respondent, who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquired. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut-shell, is that on 22nd June, 1993, PW-2 Bhag Mal came from U.S. Club side. He reached near Jodha Niwas and met PW-3 Smt. Sunita and 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. PW-4 Mast Ram. Accused came from U.S. Club side and attacked Smt. Sunita. PW-2 Bhag Mal tried to save Mast Ram and his wife from the accused. Accused gave a stab blow on the left side of his chest. He fell down and became unconscious. He was taken to the hospital. Matter was reported to the Police by PW-4 Mast Ram. F.I.R. was registered and the investigation was carried out. The knife Ex. P-1 was also recovered. 3. Prosecution has examined ten P.Ws. in all. The accused was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the charge of the prosecution and stated that the witnesses had deposed against him due inimical relations. He tendered in evidence his complete statement alongwith documents, i.e, horoscope Ex. D-23, negatives Ex. D-24 to D-30, certificates Ex.D-31 to D-38 and copy of treatment card Ex.D-39. According to him, PW-3 wrote many letters to him, i.e., Ex. D-1 to D-9. Ex. D-10 is the opinion of Shri Bal Mukand on the horoscope. According to him, she also gave her certificates Ex. D-12 to D-14 to get suitable job for her. He also picked up photographs Ex. D-18 to D-22 from the purse of PW-3 Smt. Sunita. According to him, Sunita wanted to marry him and when he refused, she started bearing grudge against him. The trial Court acquitted the respondent. 4. Mr. Vivek Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondent. 5. Mr. Romesh Verma, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 7. The incident has taken place on 22nd June, 1993. PW-2 Bhag Mal, PW-3 Smt. Sunita and PW-4 Mast Ram are closely related. PW-2 was working at the relevant time in Himfed. He has deposed that when he was coming from U.S. Club side on 22nd June, 1993 in the evening, he met PW-3 and PW-4. He inquired of their well being. In the meantime, accused came and attacked Smt. Sunita. He tried to save Sunita but was stabbed by the accused. PW-3 is Smt. Sunita. According to her, when she was standing with her husband near Jodha Niwas, PW-2 Bhag Mal came and inquired about their well being. In the meantime, accused came from U.S. Club side and started beating her. When PW-2 Bhag Mal came to rescue her, accused gave knife blow on his chest. She has denied that she had written letters to accused and she has also deposed that as per the photographs, there is some resemblance with her, but these were not her pictures. PW-4 Mast Ram has deposed that when he was standing with his wife, accused came and he attacked his wife with a knife. He further deposed that immediately thereafter, PW-2 came and tried to rescue his wife. PW-2 was stabbed by accused. 8. There are contradictions in the statements of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. According to PW-2 Bhag Mal, he was talking with PW-3 and PW-4 at the time when accused attacked them. PW-3 has also deposed that Bhag Mal was talking with her and PW-4 Mast Ram. However, PW-4 Mast Ram has deposed that when he and his wife reached Jodha Niwas, accused attacked his wife and thereafter, Bhag Mal came and tried to rescue her. Accused has also received injuries and remained admitted in the hospital. He has placed tangible evidence on record to establish that PW-3 Sunita knew him before the incident. He has placed on record photographs, letters and horoscope, including certificates. These documents could be in possession of respondent only when he knew her. Accused has also moved an application before the trial Court on 19.07.1995, under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act for comparing her hand-writing since she has refused to acknowledge them during the course of cross-examination. The application was allowed on 20.07.1995 and the trial Court has summoned PW-3 Smt. Sunita for 27.07.1995. She appeared on 31.08.1995, but refused to give her signature and specimen hand-writing, as prayed for by the accused. Since Smt. Sunita (PW-3) has refused to give her signatures and specimen hand-writing, it can safely be presumed that the letters were written by her to accused. She has also handed over the certificates to accused for seeking suitable job for her. 9. PW-2 Bhag Mal, PW-3 Smt. Sunita and PW-4 Mast Ram, as noticed above, are closely related. Jodha Niwas is a crowded place. The incident has taken place in the evening. The prosecution has not associated any independent witnesses during the course of investigation. It is true that the statements of witnesses who are related to each other cannot be discarded. However, in the absence of independent witnesses, their statements are to be scrutinized closely. There are contradictions between the statements of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. Accused has also received injuries and he was admitted in the hospital. It is also apparent that Smt. Sunita wanted to marry accused, but he has refused her offer, due to which, she started bearing grudge against him. The opinion of the learned trial Court is neither manifestly perverse nor unsupportable from the evidence on record. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. (Deepak Gupta), Judge (Rajiv Sharma) Judge May 11, 2010. (bhupender)