IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No.: 74 of 1999. Decided on: 20.05.2010. ___________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. … Appellant. Versus Chain Ram and others. … Accused/Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. N.K. Sood, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.5. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). This appeal, by the State, is directed against the judgment dated 10.8.1998, delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla in Sessions Trial No.13-S/7 of 1997 whereby the accused have been acquitted of having committed offences punishable under Sections 144, 148 449 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - read with Section 149, 332 read with Section 149 and 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. 2. At the outset we may note that respondent No.3 Narotam Chand has expired and hence the appeal qua him is disposed of having been abated. Now we proceed to deal with the appeal in respect of the other respondents. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that all the five accused formed an unlawful assembly and stormed the police post at Kharapathar, on 17.3.1995 at about 7.45 p.m. when Head Constable Amar Nath alongwith Constables Brahma Nand, Roshan Lal, Chain Ram and Jagdish Chand were inside the police post, Kharapathaar. All the five accused alongwith other persons pelted stones on the building in which the police post was housed. Thereafter these five persons trespassed into the police post and assaulted the five police officials. It is further alleged that accused Chain Ram was carrying an empty bottle and dealt a blow of that bottle on the back of the head of Constable Jagdish Chand. The other accused were also armed with dandas and bottles and they gave beatings to Constable Roshan Lal. The accused also tore the uniform of Constable Brahma Nand. Two persons, Rajinder Singh and Narinder Baltu rescued the police officials and got them released from the clutches of the accused. Thereafter, the matter was reported to Police Station, Jubbal at about 1 a.m. on 18.7.1995. The police officials were got - 3 - medically examined. After completion of the investigation the accused were charged with having committed the offences aforesaid. The learned trial Court after trial has acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal. 4. Out of the five police personnel present in the police post at the relevant time only three, i.e. PW-1 Constable Jagdish Chand, PW-2 Head Constable Amar Nath and PW-4 Roshan Lal were examined. The learned trial Court has noted a number of inconsistencies and contradictions in their statements which totally broke the prosecution case and has acquitted the accused. 5. PW-1, Constable Jagdish Chand stated that accused Chain Ram, who was armed with an empty bottle dealt a blow of that bottle on his head. However, Head Constable Amar Nath PW-2 stated that it was Vijay Chauhan who dealt a blow of bottle on the head of Jagdish Chand. PW-4 Constable Roshan Lal gave an entirely different version. According to him, Vijay Chauhan did not come with other four accused inside the police post. According to him, Vijay Chauhan entered police post subsequently. This is the first material contradiction in the statement of the witnesses. 6. According to PW-4 Constable Roshan Lal, accused Chain Ram gave a blow of danda on his left arm, but Jagdish Chand PW-1 stated that the injury on the person of Roshan Lal was not caused by Chain Ram but by one of the other - 4 - four accused. Amar Nath PW-2 gave a different version. According to him, Chain Ram gave a blow of an empty bottle to Roshan Lal. Here also, there are three totally contradictory versions; (1) that Roshan Lal was given a danda blow by Chain Ram, (2) that Roshan Lal was given a bottle blow by Chain Ram, and (3) that Roshan Lal was given a blow not by Chain Ram, but by some one of the said accused. 7. According to PW-1 Jagdish Chand, the accused were proclaiming that they will not allow the police post to continue at Kharapathar and, therefore, they had attacked the police officials. However, PW-2 Amar Nath and PW-4 Roshan Lal did not support him on this aspect also. 8. In addition to the contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses in Court, the learned trial Court has also noted that these witnesses while deposing in Court materially changed their statements and made improvements vis-à-vis their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. They have been confronted with the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. According to PW-1, he had told the police that some of the accused persons were armed with dandas, but this fact does not find mention in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.D-A. Head Constable Amar Nath (PW-2) also stated that only two of the accused were armed with empty - 5 - bottles and all the other accused were unarmed. PW-1 while deposing in Court stated that Vijay Chauhan had come to the police post alongwith other four accused. He was confronted with his statement, Ex.D-A, in which it was recorded that Vijay Chauhan came much later. 9. There are other contradictions between the testimonies of the witnesses and the evidence on record. According to PW-1 Jagdish Chand his shirt, Ex.P-1, got blood stained during the occurrence. However, on receipt of Forensic report it was found that there was no blood stain on the shirt. This witness was shown his shirt in Court and he could not show any blood stains on the same. Moreover, the learned trial Court also on visual observation could not find any blood stains on the shirt. Similar improvements have been made by the other two witnesses. We are dealing here with three witnesses who are all police officials. It is true that when the statements of the witnesses are recorded in Court after lapse of a long time, some discrepancies are bound to come in their statements. However, here we are not dealing with minor discrepancies, but with material contradictions relating to the fact as to which one of the accused hit the injured persons and which one of the accused was armed with which weapon. 10. When we deal with the statements of independent witnesses, Rajinder Singh (PW-3) and PW-6 - 6 - Narinder Baltu, the version given by both of them is totally different. According to them the police officials were not in uniform, but in plain clothes. Further, according to both, the fight took place outside the police post. 11. In view of the material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the injured themselves and in view of the statements of the independent witnesses, the defence version that the police officials had a fight with some bus passengers cannot be said to be implausible. Therefore, the learned trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused. We find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. May 20, 2010. (sck).