IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 20 of 1995 Date of decision: 7.4.2010. State of H.P. …. Appellant. Vs. Ranjan Sood and others ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the appellant-State: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General For the respondents: Mr. Varun Thakur, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 15.2.1994 of the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lauhal-Spiti Districts, at Mandi in Sessions trial No. 34 of 1992 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The admitted facts are that the complainant PW-1 Mahesh Kumar and the accused persons are neighbours. Their houses are adjacent to each other and a dispute is pending between the two sides about the drainage between the two houses. The prosecution story is that on 29.7.1992 PW-1 Mahesh Kumar closed his shop at about 8.00 p.m. He then started walking towards his house. On the way he met PW-14 Viki 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment. Yes. 2 Khanna alias Arvind Khanna, who was driving a scooter. The complainant got a lift on his scooter. When they reached near the Staff Club the accused were on the road. While the scooter was passing the accused No.1 Ranjan Sood gave a blow with a long iron weapon having a sharpened edge on one side, on the chest of the complainant. As a result of this injury the complainant started bleeding. With a view to save his life he asked PW-14 to stop the scooter and ran towards Neelam Hotel and went inside. However, the accused followed him and accused No.1 caused more injuries with the same weapon on the arm of the complainant. A number of persons gathered at the spot. They intervened and saved the life of the complainant. The injured was then taken to the hospital. From the hospital information was given to the police about the incident. PW-2 Gurbachan Singh then went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the complainant Ext.PA in which the complainant stated the facts as narrated here-in-above. Other investigation was got done. The blood stained clothes of the complainant, a shoe which he had allegedly dropped on the way while he was running and some dropped blood was collected from the site and taken into possession. Thereafter, the accused Ranjan Sood was arrested. He allegedly made disclosure statement Ext.PK to the police on the basis of 3 which Gupti Ext.P4 was recovered and taken into possession vide memo Ext.PL. The injured was got medically examined by PW-5 Dr. J.C.Sharma. Human blood of group ‘A’ was found on the shirt, Gupti and Baniyan collected from the spot. After the investigation challan was filed against the accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial as many as 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Thereafter the accused was acquitted. Hence the present appeal. At the outset, it may be stated that even on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint as well as the evidence on record no offence what-so-ever is made out against accused No.2 and 3. The only allegation is that they were present at the spot. There is no allegation or proof that they had conspired or that the alleged occurrence was a result of that conspiracy. No overt act is ascribed to accused No. 2 and 3. Therefore, no case is made out against these two accused. As far as the accused No.1 is concerned, we find that the learned trial Court after going through the entire evidence has come to the conclusion that there are glaring contradictions in the version of the complainant which make his statement in the Court highly untrustworthy and unworthy of credence. The first version given by the complainant has already been detailed here- 4 in-above. According to this version while he was on the scooter of Arvind Khanna, accused Ranjan Sood attacked him with a long iron rod having a sharpened edge, which hit him on the left side of his chest. He then asked PW-14, the driver of the scooter, to stop the vehicle in order to protect his life and then ran away. In Court this witness gives a totally different version. According to him when they reached near the Staff Club first the accused attacked Arvind Khanna, who sustained injuries on his forehead. Then PW-14 stopped the scooter and thereafter accused Ranjan Sood gave a blow with a Kirch on the left side of his chest. Thus there are material contradictions in the statement of this witness. Whereas in the original complaint there was no mention of Arvind Khanna having sustained any injury in the version given in the Court he stated that Arvind Khanna sustained injuries and thereafter he was given a blow with a Kirch. In the complaint he had stated that he sustained injuries with a long iron rod which had a sharpened edge but now the weapon of offence is termed to be a ‘Kirch’. What was finally recovered is a ‘Gupti’ which is a small knife. Therefore, the weapon of offence has been differently described in different versions. PW-14 Arvind Khanna has not supported the version of the complainant. He in his examination-in-chief does not state that he suffered any injury. 5 According to PW-14 he had given a lift to the complainant and when they were near the Club the complainant asked him to permit him to get down. He then stopped the scooter and the complainant got down from the scooter. According to him nothing else happened in his presence. Though this witness has been cross-examined but nothing material could be extracted in his cross-examination. Therefore, the very genesis of the incident becomes doubtful. Another reason to doubt the version of the complainant is that according to him after he was attacked he asked PW-14 to stop the vehicle so that he could run away. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that if he was on a scooter which was in motion when he was attacked, natural human conduct would have been to tell the scooter driver to go fast and flee away from the spot. The learned trial Court was right in holding that this version of the complainant does not sound to be true. Even the subsequent conduct of the complainant is not natural. According to him he feared for his life at the hands of the accused. He, therefore, ran to Neelam Hotel, which appears to be a Halwai shop. As per the site plan and as has come out in evidence there were a number of other shops between the place where the complainant was first attacked when he was on the scooter and thereafter in the Neelam Hotel. It has also come 6 on record that the complainant knew some of the shopkeepers like PW-6 Sushil Kumar and PW-9 Deepak Kumar, whose shops were before Neelam Hotel. If the complainant was running away trying to protect his life he would have dived into the first shop where he could have got protection. According to the complainant when he entered Neelam Hotel he was again beaten by the accused Ranjan Sood with the same weapon. However, neither the owner of Neelam Hotel nor any other person who was present in Neelam Hotel at that time have been examined. The persons who were examined were the shopkeepers in whose shops the complainant did not go. Even these witnesses have not supported the prosecution version. According to them they did not see the accused actually giving the blows to the complainant. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. (Deepak Gupta) Judge. 7th April, 2010. ( Sanjay Karol ) ™ Judge.