IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.101 of 1993 Decided on : March 25, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Brij Mohan and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge ( Oral ) State is aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court whereby the respondents, who were tried for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 353, read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, have been acquitted. 2. Allegations on which the respondents were charged and tried for the aforesaid offences may be noticed. On the night intervening 22nd & 23rd December, 1990, a Naka had been organized by ASI Chander Singh (PW-4) near Police Station Renukaji. He was accompanied by PW-2 Pradeep Kumar (injured) and some other police officials. Around 3.30 a.m., a Maruti Van bearing registration No.HPY- 866 appeared from Dadahu side. It was being driven by respondent Brij Mohan. There were four other persons in the vehicle, including respondent Dinesh Kumar. The road had been blocked by laying some Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… wooden logs to make the Naka effective. Because of the blockade, the van stopped. Respondent Brij Mohan, who knew PW-2 Pradeep Kumar, Constable, from before, called him to the place where the van had been brought to a halt. When PW-2 Pradeep Kumar went near the aforesaid vehicle and placed his hand on the angle-iron, fitted above the front bumper of the vehicle, respondent Brij Mohan allegedly moved the vehicle at slow speed and then at a distance of 20-25 feet, all of a sudden, he accelerated the speed, on account of which PW-2 Pradeep Kumar fell on the road and the left side tyres of the van passed over his legs. He sustained crush injuries. The vehicle was allegedly being used for illegal export of timber. 3. Matter was reported to the police, immediately. PW-2 Pradeep Kumar was got medically examined. The Maruti Van was chased by PW-4 ASI Chander Singh and the other police officials accompanying him, in a truck, but respondent drove it so fast that the police party could not over-reach it. The second respondent is alleged to have exhorted respondent Brij Mohan to run over PW-2 Pradeep Kumar. 4. During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. A.K. Gupta, who conducted the medico legal examination of PW-2 Pradeep Kumar. Pradeep Kumar himself appeared as PW-2. ASI Chander Singh, who headed the police party, was examined as PW-4 and Rustam Ali, another police official, who was a member of the Naka party, as PW-5. 5. Trial Court has doubted the prosecution evidence. Reasons recorded by the trial Court for disbelieving the testimony of the injured and the abovenamed two other police officials are:- …3… (a) There were some independent witnesses on the spot, who have not been examined. (b) The medico legal evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version. (c) The earliest version recorded in the form of statement of PW-2 Pradeep Kumar, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Ex. PC, appears to be manipulated and ante-timed. 6. We have been taken through the evidence on record by the learned Deputy Advocate General and have also heard the learned Deputy Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. We do not agree with reason (a) above given by the trial Court for acquitting the respondents. It is not the requirement of law that every person, who happens to be on the spot at the time of the commission of the offence, should be examined. Moreover, the evidence on record does not show that the alleged independent witnesses were already on the spot, when the incident took place. The incident is alleged to have taken place at an odd hour of the night when no independent witness(es) was supposed to be available. The witnesses, it appears, reached the spot only after the alleged occurrence. 8. However, we see no reason to differ with the remaining two reasons recorded by the trial Court for acquitting the respondents and also the final verdict of acquittal. 9. As per the earliest version, the injured, PW-2 Pradeep Kumar, was attempted to be run over, as soon as he reached near the van, on being called by respondent Brij Mohan and both the tyres of one side of the van passed over his legs causing crush injuries. There …4… is no mention that the injured was dragged either before the tyres passed over his legs or thereafter. However, while in the witness-box, the injured testified that when he reached the site where the van was brought to a halt, on being called by respondent Brij Mohan, he placed his hands on the angle-iron fitted above the bumper, the respondent started the van and drove it at a slow speed to a distance of 25-30 feet and thereafter, all of a sudden, he accelerated the speed with a view to running over him under the van and both the tyres on the left side passed over his left leg only. The reason for the contradiction in the earliest version and in the testimony of PW-2 Pradeep Kumar appears to be the medico legal evidence which does not support the ocular version. As per medico legal evidence, which is in the form of the testimony of PW-1 Dr. A.K. Gupta and the medico legal report Ex. PA, injuries on the legs of PW-2 Pradeep Kumar could not have been sustained as a result of running over of the legs by a Maruti Van. PW-2 Dr. A.K. Gupta stated that had the wheels of the vehicle passed over the legs of the injured there were bound to be crush injuries. The medico legal evidence also does not support the changed version in the testimony PW-2 Pradeep Kumar either, because according to the doctor these injuries could not have been sustained, on account of the dragging of the injured by the vehicle. The witness stated that the injuries were grazed ones which could have been possible, as a result of the grazing of the site of the injuries by the moving wheels of the vehicle and not by passing of the tyres of vehicle over the legs. 10. All the injuries that were noticed on the person of PW-2 Pradeep Kumar were simple in nature. Medical evidence does not support the version that the injured was run over by the vehicle, in …5… question. Under these circumstances, the booking of the respondents under Section 307 IPC was not justified. 11. We also find the earliest version to be doubtful. The earliest version, as per note made below it by PW-16 Tarsem Lal, SHO, was recorded on the spot at 3.45 a.m. and on the basis of this earliest version contained in Ex. PC, the statement of PW-2 Pradeep Kumar, formal FIR was registered at 3.55 a.m. The medico legal report Ex. PA shows that the injured had been taken to the hospital at 3.40 a.m. That means he was not available on the spot at the time when his statement, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Ex. PK, purports to have been recorded. This fact alone is enough to presume that the earliest version is manipulated. No timber was found in the van, when it was allegedly found abandoned. 12. In view of the abovestated position, we see no valid reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 13. Appeal stands disposed of. ( Surjit Singh ), J March 25, 2008(sd) ( V.K. Ahuja ), J