IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 103 of 1998 Decided on : March 17, 2010 State of H.P …Appellant Versus Kehar Singh and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assitant Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 6.11.1997, of learned Sessions Court, Una, whereby respondents, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 307 read with Section 34 IPC, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, as per evidence on record, is like this. On 1.1.1996, around 6.45 p.m., when PW-1 Surinder Singh was on way to his house from Bhaira Bazaar and reached in front of the house of respondents, he was physically lifted by the respondents and taken inside their house. There he was stabbed several times and caused wounds, dangerous to life. On coming to know that his son had ventured into the house of respondents, father of PW-1 Surinder Singh, namely PW-2 Achhar Singh, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… accompanied by his another son PWw-3 Jagjit Singh, went to the house of respondents and saw PW-1 Surinder Singh lying with bleeding injuries in the house of respondents. He then returned to his house. PW-5 Som Dutt, Pardhan of Panchayat, was informed by respondent Kehar Singh about the incident. He went to the spot and on inquiry; PW-1 Surinder Singh told him that he happened to trespass into the house of respondents. Police was informed by PW-4 Wattan Singh, Numberdar. PW-14 SI Sansar Chand reached the spot. Seeing the condition of PW-2 Surinder Singh, he rushed him to the hospital at Amb, from where he was referred to District Hospital, Una. When condition of PW-1 started deteriorating, he was taken to PGI, Chandigarh. On 6.1.1996, Surinder Singh regained consciousness. His statement Ext. PW1/A was recorded and case was registered, under Sections 307, 323 and 342 IPC. 3. Respondents were charged by the trial Court, with offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and were, therefore, put on trial. 4. Respondents took the plea that on the relevant evening there was no electricity in the village or in the street and when respondent Kehar Singh returned home he heard some rattling sound in one of his rooms, upon which he suspected that some thief might be there. He raised alarm upon which other respondents, namely Bishan Kaur, his wife, and Jarnail Singh, his son, came there. PW-1 Surinder Singh, who was inside the room, probably with …3… intent to commit theft, tried to hit them with a screw driver, which he was carrying. A scuffle ensued between respondent Jarnail Singh and PW-1 Surinder Singh in which Surinder Singh sustained injuries. 5. Learned trial Court has believed the defence version and acquitted the respondents. 6. We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General as also learned counsel, representing the respondents, and gone through the record. 7. Defence plea is corroborated by prosecution own evidence. Father of injured Surinder Singh, namely PW-2 Achhar Singh, stated in the examination-in-chief itself that he came to know that his son Surinder Singh happened to enter the house of respondents, upon which he was stabbed by the respondents. This statement of PW-2 Achhar Singh gives a lie to the testimony of PW-1 Surinder Singh that he was physically lifted by the respondents and carried to their house, when he was passing in front of their house. PW-4 Wattan Singh, Numberdar of the village, also stated that PW-1 Surinder Singh had trespassed into the house of respondents. 8. PW-5 Som Dutt, Pardhan of Panchayat, very categorically stated that when he went to the spot and asked PW-1 Surinder Singh, who was lying in injured state, as to what had happened, he admitted that he happened to enter the house of respondents, upon which a scuffle had taken place. …4… 9. Conduct of the father and the brother of PW-1 Surinder Singh, who appeared as PW-1 and PW-2, respectively, is also suggestive of the fact that Surinder Singh trespassed into the house of respondents. They did not lodge any report with the police. The fact is admitted by them in their testimony in the Court. When PW-1 Surinder Singh had been inflicted several stab wounds, his father and brother, who reached the spot, within a few minutes of the incident, were supposed to have lodged report with the police. Not only that they did not lodge any report with the police, but on seeing PW-2 Surinder Singh, lying with bleeding injuries, they returned to their house and did not inform anybody. It was respondent Kehar Singh, who went to inform Numberdar PW-4 Wattan Singh and then Pardhan of Panchayat PW-5 Som Dutt. 10. PW-1 Surinder Singh himself also did not lodge the report promptly, despite the fact that police reached the spot within a few hours of the incident and carried him to the hospital. He took six days to lodge report. 11. In view of the above stated position, we find no merit in the appeal. Hence, it is dismissed. (Surjit Singh), J. March 17, 2010 (ss) (Rajiv Sharma), J.