IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. : 306 of 2000. Decided on: 19.10.2010. _________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. -Versus- Ram Singh. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1.No. __________________________________________________________ For the appellant : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge(Oral) : State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 31.08.1999 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, whereby respondent, who was charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal can be summarized as under: On 09.12.1994, complainant Hardev Singh (PW- 1) and his brother Baldev Singh (PW-2), were taking their labourers from their house, situated at Dohra-nalla to their orchard. When they reached near the house of respondent 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - Ram Singh, he threw some liquid on them. They felt burning sensation. They came to District Hospital, Kullu for medical treatment. Statement of PW-1 Hardev Singh was recorded, under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Ex.PW-1/A), on the basis of which, F.I.R. Ex. PW-6/A was registered. The matter was investigated by the police and the challan was put up before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu. 3. Statement of respondent Ram Singh was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the entire incriminating circumstances, which were put to him, either specifically or for want of knowledge. According to him, the witnesses have deposed falsely against him and, in fact, Hardev Singh, his brother and other witnesses examined in this case, had indulged in rioting by damaging a bus and they had also scuffled with other persons. In this case, respondent and his family members were cited as witnesses against the complainant and other accused persons, and for this reason, he had been falsely implicated. In defence, he has relied upon Ex.-DA, copy of F.I.R. No. 476 of 1994, dated 09.12.1994. The respondent was acquitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 31.08.1999. Hence, this appeal. - 3 - 4. Learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondent. 5. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment dated 31.08.1999. 6. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General, as also the learned counsel representing the respondent and gone through the record meticulously. 7. The incident has taken place on 9th December, 1994. F.I.R. was registered vide Ex. PW-6/A, on the basis of statement of PW-1 Hardev Singh, recorded under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Ex.PW-1/A. There is variance in the statements made by PW-1 Hardev Singh and PW-2 Baldev vis-à-vis F.I.R. Ex.PW-6/A. What has been narrated in the F.I.R., is that PW-1 and PW-2 were taking their labourers to the orchard and when they reached near the house of respondent, at about 7:00 P.M., he threw acid on them. However, PW-1 Hardev Singh has testified before the Court that when he reached near the shop of the respondent, he had stopped there for purchasing some articles/provisions and then, respondent threw some liquid on them from a ‘Dibba’. According to him, the respondent was under the influence of liquor. 8. PW-2 Baldev has also testified that the incident took place on 09.12.1994, when they were returning from the orchard alongwith labourers. He further testified that - 4 - the respondent had thrown some liquid on them from a ‘Dibba’, when they reached near his house. According to PW-3 Roshan Lal, when they reached near the shop of the respondent, he was called by Hardev Singh in order to purchase some articles. Respondent threw some liquid on them from a ‘Dibba’, but the liquid fell on Baldev and Hardev. He further testified that after throwing the acid, the respondent had thrown the ‘Dibba’ down, which was lifted by Hardev. Dr. Suresh Sharma (PW-7), had medically examined Hardev Singh and his brother Baldev. He had referred PW-2 Baldev to eye surgeon. PW-5 Sonam Chhering examined the eye injuries of PW-2 and he issued his opinion Ex. PW-5/A, dated 21.05.1995. Dr. Suresh Sharma (PW-7) issued M.L.C. Ex. PW-7/B. He also issued M.L.C. of Hardev Singh Ex. PW-7/A. F.I.R. Ex. PW-6/A was registered by PW-6 Nihal Chand, on the basis of Ex. PW- 1/A. In his cross-examination, he deposed that F.I.R. No. 476 of 1994, dated 09.12.1994 was also registered against PW-1 Hardev Singh, PW-2 Baldev Singh and others at 8:30 P.M. He recorded the statement of Hardev Singh in the hospital. In his cross-examination, he stated that on 09.12.1994, he was also handed over the file of F.I.R. No. 476 of 1994 for investigation and respondent Ram Singh and his other family members were cited as witnesses. According to him, ‘Dibba’ could not be recovered because the same had been thrown by the respondent in a Khad. - 5 - 9. PW-3 had testified that the ‘Dibba’ was thrown by the respondent down, which was picked up by PW-1 Hardev Singh and handed over to the police. According to PWs No. 1 to 3, the acid like substance was thrown from ‘Dibba’, however, a new dimension has been given by PW-9 Ram Krishan, who deposed that when Hardev Singh and his brother Baldev Singh were going to their house and were about to climb the stairs, respondent Ram Singh threw acid on them from a bottle. He has also admitted that F.I.R. was registered against him, PW-1 and PW-2 bearing No. 476 of 1994, dated 09.12.1994. He also admitted that respondent and his family members were cited as witnesses. 10. The police had not recovered the ‘Dibba’. The recovery of ‘Dibba’ was necessary to prove whether it contained any acid or not. 11. There are material contradictions in the statements made by PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9. PW-1 in the earliest version, recorded under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Ex. PW-1/A, had stated that he alongwith his brother and labourers, were going to their orchard. However, while appearing as PW-1 and PW-2, as noticed above, Hardev Singh and Baldev had deposed that they were going to their house and stopped to buy certain articles from the shop of the respondent. According to PW- 1, PW-2 and PW-3, the acid was thrown by the respondent - 6 - from a ‘Dibba’, however, according to PW-9, it was thrown from a bottle. F.I.R. was also registered against PW-1, PW-2 and PW-9 bearing No. 476 of 1994. The respondent and his family members have been cited as prosecution witnesses. The incident, on the basis of which, F.I.R. No. 476 of 1994 was registered, has taken place at about 6:30 P.M.. PW-5 Dr. Sonam Chering had examined Baldev Singh and issued his opinion Ex. PW-5/A, dated 21.05.1995, though according to the prosecution case, he received injuries on 09.12.1994. It is, thus, evident that the respondent has been falsely implicated, since he alongwith his family members, has been cited as witness in F.I.R. No. 476 of 1994. There are material contradictions in the statements made by the prosecution witnesses, as noticed above. 12. In view of the abovestated position, we do not think this to be a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh), Judge (Rajiv Sharma) Judge October 19, 2010. (bhupender) - 7 - - 8 -