1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 200 of 1994 Date of Decision: 03.04.2008 ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Het Ram. ……..Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No For the appellant : Mr. P. M. Negi, Additional Advocate General. For respondent : Sh. T. R. Chandel, Advocate ______________________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J. (oral) Het Ram respondent was charged with and tried for offences punishable, under Section 304 and 201, I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act, for allegedly committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder by killing a girl named Raj Kumari with a shot fired through gun of one Hima Ram. Trial Court has acquitted him. State has appealed against the judgment of acquittal. Prosecution case as per evidence on record is like this: Roop Singh (PW1) was present at the house of one Hima Ram along-with a brother of Hima Ram named Man Singh and respondent Het Ram. Around 4.00 P.M., Het Ram picked-up the gun of Hima Ram from his house and went out saying that he would hunt for rabbits and kakkad. Within a few minutes of the respondent leaving Hima Ram’s place, sound of gun shot fire was heard. It was followed by cries of a girl. Roop Singh and Man Singh went towards the site from which sound of gun shot and cries of the girl were Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 emanating. They saw Darshanu (PW17) carrying the girl Raj Kumari on her back towards her house. Raj Kumari was crying and bleeding from the back of her chest. She died before she could be provided any medical-aid. Post-mortem examination was conducted and the following two gun shot injuries were noticed on her person by Dr. Suresh Sankhyan (PW18): “1. There were multiple small pellet wounds encircled with abrasion and contusion collars, present above the buttock in lumber region and extending on to the back of chest, spread horizontally through out the whole width of the back (i.e. 30 c.m. side to side) and vertically in an area of 41 cm, slightly more on the left side and numbering 60 to 65 wounds. There was blood oozing out from the pallet wounds lying in the vicinity of the lower part of pleural cavity. 2. There was one contusion with overlying abrasion measuring 2 x 2__cm, oval in shape, reddish in colour, situated at the leven of T-8 vertebra on the right side of the back of the chest 2 cm from the vertebral column (injury caused by way of the shotgun cartridge)”. The matter was reported to the Police. During the course of investigation, the police seized gun of one Sagru examined as PW6 and certain cartridges, including an empty cartridge Exhibit-P7. The gun and the empty cartridge, as also a few live cartridges, were sent to the Ballistic Expert, who reported that the empty cartridge Exhibit-P7 had been fired through gun Exhibit P7 which had been seized from the house of Sagru. Prosecution examined Roop Siingh (PW1) and Man Singh (PW10) in whose presence, the respondent allegedly picked up a gun from the house of Hima Ram and went towards the fields saying that he was going to hunt for rabbits and Kakkad. Trial Court dis-believed the prosecution 3 version and acquitted the respondent mainly on the ground that even though gun of Hima Ram was alleged to have been used by the respondent to commit crime, but no evidence was led whether any gun belonging to Hima Ram had been used in the commission of crime and that in fact, the story had been changed and it was sought to be proved that gun of Sagru (PW6) had been used for committing the crime. We have been taken through the evidence. Also we have heard learned Deputy Advocate General and the learned counsel for the respondent. It may be stated that Roop Singh (PW1) very categorically stated that the gun allegedly used by the respondent to commit the crime had been picked up by him from the house of Hima Ram where he (Roop Singh), Man Singh and the respondent were present. The statement of PW1 Roop Singh implies that the gun belonged to Hima Ram. However, the gun that was produced during the trial belongs to Sagru (PW6) who testified that on the relevant date, his gun was at his own place under lock and key. Daughter of Sagru, Vidya Devi (PW5), also stated that her father’s gun remained in their house on the date of alleged occurrence under lock and key. In view of the above stated evidence led by the prosecution itself, it cannot be said that the trial Court has committed any error in passing the judgment of acquittal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh), J. April 3, 2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (bm)