IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.186 of 1997. Decided on: July 30, 2010. State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Chader Mani. ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. with Mr.Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. For respondent: Mr.B.K. Malhotra, with Mr. Rohit Chauhan Advocates. R.B.Misra, Judge(Oral) The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after the leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to judgment dated 22.11.1996, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, HP in Sessions Trial No.23 of 1993 thereby acquitting the respondent / accused person for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2. In order to adjudicate the present appeal, it is necessary to give the brief facts of the prosecution case. On 16.9.1992, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jogindernagar gave information that one injured person had been admitted in the hospital and accordingly, Station House Officer, Kullu recorded the statement of one Khullu Ram and it was found that the victim Ranu Ram was hit by ‘Kulharu’ blow by Chandermani. However, he could not tell about the occurrence and in that respect, FIR No. 206/92 was registered and after investigation, accused was charged for the offence under section 307 of I.P.C and the case was committed for sessions trial 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses, whereas, the respondents / accused, to his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has denied the charges and prosecution case. 4. PW-1 Dr. Jatinder Kaul had examined the victim Ranu Ram on 16.9.1992 at 7.10 PM and found the following injuries:- (1) There was a clean incised wound extending from the outer canthus of the right eye brow to the angle of right jaw--- in shape. The maxillary antrun was open. The buccinator muscle was cut. The facial nerve …3… excised. There was sensory loss. The wound was bleeding profusely. (2) There was a clean incised wou,d over the right eye brow on the right side of the forehead measuring 1.5 inch x 6 inch x 4 inch in diamensions bleeding. (3) There was a clean incised wound on the left side of chest just above 10th and 11th rib on posterior aspect in infrascaplar region, 3” x 6” x 1- 8” in diamension. The blood was over the wound clotted. Injury No.1 was grievous while injuries No. 2 & 3 were simple. PW-2 Ravinder Singh, PW-3 Khalu Ram, PW-4 Mani Ram, PW-5 Bhupu Ram, PW-6 Surji Devi, PW-7, Ranu Ram, PW-8 ASI Om Chand and PW-9, SI, Yoghes were examined. 5. On examination of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, we notice that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence, which indicates that the accused inflicted injuries with the intention to commit murder of Ranu Ram by Chandermani accused. The only witness is injured Ranu Ram PW-7, who has stated that two blows of ‘kulharu’ Ex P-1 were given by the accused on his head and back in his Verandah. 6. PW-5 Bhupu Ram was examined. As per the statement of PW-7 Ranu Ram, Bhupu Ram sitting with …4… Chandermani in the house of accused and Bhupu Ram called him. He also went there. Thereafter, accused gave ‘kulharu’ blow. However, PW-5 has not supported the prosecution case and has stated that the mother of Chandermani called him by telling that Ranu Ram had come to give beatings and in his presence Ranu Ram abused the accused and threw 2/3 stones on his house and after removing shirt, Ranu Ram climbed the stairs and then he heard the noise inside the house of Chandermani and found Ranu Ram giving jump from the room to the courtyard ad from courtyard to the field. 7. PW-5 in his cross examination has stated that at that time Ranu Ram had consumed liquor and two sisters, one Bhabi and one mother of the accused were present in the house. These family members of the accused were eye witnesses of the alleged occurrence, but none of them had been examined by the prosecution. However, PW-5 had declared hostile 8. According to the testimony of PW-6, the daughter of injured Ranu Ram was found by her in the ‘Nallah’ and she went to call her uncles and her uncles, who appeared as PW-3 Khalu Ram and PW- 4 Mani Ram have deposed that they went to the house of Ranu Ram and found him lying in injured condition. If Ranu Ram was found in an injured …5… condition in the Nallah by Surji Devi (PW-6), then it is very surprising that how and by which persons Ranu Ram, in an injured condition, was taken to his house. Therefore, it is apparently clear from the prosecution case, that nobody has seen the incident. Ranu Ram, being injured was said to have been found in ‘Nallah’ in view of the testimony of his daughter PW-6, whereas in the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4, he was found in an injured condition in his house. 9. In view of such discrepancies, contradictions and improbabilities, learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 10. In our considered view the “Kulharu” Ex P-1 could not be said to be linked with the act of the accused and also the role of accused could not be corroborated in view of his alleged act and the injury said to be inflicted by the accused on the body of Ranu Ram. 11. In these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. We find no scope for interference in the impugned judgment and the appeal, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. …6… 12. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondent/accused are hereby discharged. ( R.B.Misra ), J. July 30, 2010. ( V.K.Sharma ), J. (sl) …7…