IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 1999 Date of Decision : August 04, 2010 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Harjeet Singh alias Minta Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State. For the respondent : Mr. Ashok Chaudhary and Mr. Sandeep Chauhan, Advocates, for the respondent. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 30.12.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Case No. 30- K/VII/97 whereby the accused has been acquitted of having committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 5.8.1996 complainant Surinder Kumar (PW-3) had come to B.A.M.S. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 college at Ghurkari to collect his mark sheet. There a fight took place between him and the accused accompanied by two other boys and the accused stabbed him with ‘Kirpan’. The complainant was thereafter shifted firstly to the hospital at Kangra in a three wheeler. There he was given the first aid treatment and then referred to the Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala. Since the injury was serious in nature the complainant was taken to Christian Medical College, Ludhiana where he remained admitted for nine days. When the complainant was taken to the hospital at Dharamshala his statement (Ext. PW1/C) was recorded by the police and on the basis of his statement F.I.R. (Ext. PW 11/A) was registered. After the completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court for trial. The accused was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. After trial he has been acquitted. Hence the present appeal by the State. 3. Complainant (PW-3) while appearing in Court stated that on the date of the incident he had come to the college and when he was standing near the residence of Mr. Saini resident of Ghurkari accused along with two – three other boys stopped his scooter and accused gave him blows with a knife when he was standing there. He stated that the accused was also a student of B.A.M.S. college Ghurkari 3 but he did not know the other two persons accompanying the accused. Thereafter the complainant ran away from the site of the incident. He thereafter met Atul and Chandan who were his college mates. They took him in a three wheeler to Kangra hospital. According to this witness at Kangra he was treated by Dr. Mahajan and he told Dr. Mahajan about the occurrence. Thereafter the police came to the hospital and statement (Ext. PW 1/C) of the injured was recorded. He was referred to the hospital at Dharamshala and finally to Ludhiana. In cross examination a suggestion has been put to him that he could not make a statement since he had lost the power of speech on account of the injuries. He denied this and stated that he lost his speech only at night time and even thereafter he could speak after pressing the tube which had been inserted in his trachea. He stated that he had gone to the college along with two – three other boys. He did not know why accused and other persons accompanying him had fight with him. He admitted that his scooter was seized by the police but denied the fact that any ‘nain-chaku’ was recovered from the scooter. 4. The other important witness is Chandan (PW- 13). He is stated to be an eye witness of the occurrence. However, his version with regard to the incident is totally 4 different. According to him one day prior to the incident complainant Surinder came to the hostel and wanted to collect his mark sheet. Dazy son of the Principal of the College (PW-4) told the accused that why he had come on Sunday to collect the mark sheet and that he should deposit the amount for the same. Thereafter Surinder abused him in the presence of Dazy’s wife. At that time the accused and five – six boys were sitting there. The accused requested the complainant not to abuse and then a fight took place between them. Thereafter complainant Surinder left the hostel. 5. Next day i.e. on the date of incident Chandan (PW-13) along with accused Harjeet were going to the hostel to take their meals when at about 1 – 1.30 p.m. Surinder came on a scooter and started abusing them. A fight erupted between them. Thereafter accused Harjeet took out a ‘kirpan’ and stabbed Surinder in the stomach. According to this witness Tarjeet Singh (PW-7) also came there and the Principal was informed. This witness admitted that when Surinder came on the scooter there were two other boys with him. He admitted that Surinder had a ‘nain- chaku’ with him. This witness also admitted that he had been kept in the police station for one night. He however denied that the police had threatened him that he would be 5 arraigned as an accused in case he did not testify against accused Harjeet. 6. Sh. Atul Kumar (PW-8) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution at all. Similarly Sh. Tarjeet Singh (PW-7) also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. Even the Principal of the College (PW-4) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. 7. From the statements of the above witnesses it is evident that one day prior to the occurrence the complainant had hurled abuses at the son of the Principal and thereafter a fight had taken place between accused Harjeet and the complainant. Next day the complainant came to the hostel accompanied by two boys. He was armed with a ‘nain-chaku’ and he started abusing the accused. It was thereafter that the fight started. It is, therefore, apparent that even if the version of Chandan (PW-13) is to be believed that the fight was initiated by the complainant himself who was armed with a deadly weapon and therefore even if it be held that the accused did stab the complainant same would be in exercise of his right to provide defence. 8. Even otherwise the version of the complainant does not appear to be correct. He has not named the two persons accompanying him. Who were these two persons 6 remains totally unexplained. They were the best witnesses to the incident and have not been examined. 9. According to the complainant he met Chandan after the incident had taken place whereas according to Chandan he was accompanying accused Harjeet when the fight took place. This is another major contradiction in the prosecution case. 10. According to the complainant it was Dr. Mahajan who examined him at the hospital at Kangra. However, the prosecution has examined Dr. S. B. Sood in this regard and there is no material on record that Dr. Mahajan attended to the complainant at Kangra. It is, therefore, apparent that the complainant is not telling the full truth and the learned trial Court in these circumstances was justified in acquitting the accused. 11. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed as such. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 04, 2010 (PK)