GIAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dtd. 21/6/2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 292/1998 has been challenged by the appellant who has been convicted under Sec. 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00 with default sentence of six months. The Judgment of acquittal of the Trial Court was reversed.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that on 15/9/1992 at 9.00 a.m., the complainant Mohar Singh, PW-1, a member of Gram Panchayat, Karar accompanied by Khyali Ram, PW-6, Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat lodged a daily diary report with the police post Anni, District Kullu stating that at about 7.00 p.m. on 14/9/1992, after hearing noise when they came out, they saw a verbal duel between Gian Chand, the appellant, Mohar Lal, Ranjit and Ghum Dassi on the one hand and Salig Ram, the deceased, on the other hand. The accused Mohar Lal was carrying danda and other accused were carrying thick branches of Rai. After verbal altercation continued for some time, Gian Chand, Mohar Lal and Ranjit attacked the deceased Salig Ram with danda as a result of which he died and they fled from the spot. FIR came to be registered. The prosecution produced fifteen witnesses whereas in defence, the appellant produced Amar Singh, DW-1. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence, acquitted the accused. However, in appeal by the State, the judgment of the Trial Court was reversed and the appellant was convicted under Sec. 304 Part II, IPC. It is this order which is under challenge in the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are discrepancies in the evidence led by the prosecution. On the basis of the statement of the eyewitnesses, the appellant could not be convicted. Well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court has been reversed though the view taken was possible. Admittedly, there was a land dispute between the parties. The evidence led by the appellant in defence in the form of statement of Amar Singh, who appeared as DW-1 was not considered at all. He was an independent witness, though relative of both, the appellant as well as the deceased. He clearly stated that the deceased died on account of fall from the danga, which was 10-12 feet high. He further submitted that it is a case where the incident took place way back in the year 1992. More than three decades have passed by. Families have also settled in their lives. The matter may be considered in that light as well.