STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. BASANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 3rd December, 2003 delivered by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Trial No. 30 -P/VII/1999 (RBT No. 35 -P/VII/2003), whereby he acquitted the accused persons of having committed offences punishable under Sections 307,147,148 and 149, IPC. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Baijnath sent telephonic information to the police station Baijnath which was recorded at serial No. 7 in daily diary on 2.8.1998, (Ex. PW12/A) to the effect that one person Milkhi Ram son of Jhomphi Ram has been brought in an injured condition in the hospital. The police officials went to the hospital and recorded the statement of Smt. Anita Devi wife of the injured. In her statement made to the police, she stated that on 1.6.1998 at about 9.00 P.M., when her husband Milkhi Ram was returning home after work, she saw Sanju son of Basant Ram accused hitting her husband two or three times with some object. Thereafter, the other accused Jaike Ram, Sunil Kumar, Basant Ram, Simro Devi, Shakuntla Devi, Jagdish Chand and Anu came to the spot armed with dandas (sticks) and they also beat her husband with the dandas (sticks). Due to the beatings inflicted, her husband Milkhi Ram suffered injuries all over his body. When she and her brother -in -law went to the spot and raised an alarm, the accused left her husband and ran away. She further stated that this incident was witnessed by her brother -in -law Ghapla Ram and her son Rajesh and daughter Santoshi Devi. She also stated that there was old enemity between two sides and this was the motive for the accused to cause injury on her husband. On the basis of this statement, FIR EX. PW8/B was lodged and the police investigated the matter. Certain recoveries were made at the spot and the accused were challaned for having committed aforesaid offences to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial, they have been acquitted on the grounds that the statements of the complainant, her husband Milkhi Ram and other witnesses are inconsistent and also there was delay in lodging the FIR. Hence, this appeal by the State.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant and learned defence counsel for the respondents and gone though the record of the case.

(3.) ANITA Devi, wife of the complainant appeared as PW4. She stuck to the version which she had given in her statement under section 154 Cr.P.C. However, there is one material difference. Whereas in her first statement made to the police she was unable to identify the nature of weapon while appearing in court she clearly stated that accused Sanju had assaulted her husband with iron rod. Furthermore, whereas in the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C, she had only stated that she and her brother -in -law Ghapla had gone to the spot while appearing in Court, she stated that her children had also gone immediately to the spot. According to her, next in the morning they went to the police station at about 7.00 A.M. and lodged the report and thereafter, they went to the Civil Hospital at Baijnath. This does not appear to be correct since, as indicated above the first daily diary report produced by the police, EX. PW12/A, is stated to be entered at 9.30 A.M and at the instance of the Medical Officer of the Civil Hospital, Baijnath. Further more, even in the FIR, it is 18/1/2013 Page 57 Surjeet Singh Versus State Of Himachal Pradesh stated that the information was received at the police station at 9.30 A.M on 2.6.1998 vide daily diary No. 11 and thereafter, the FIR was finally recorded at 11.45 A.M. This clearly indicates that the version of Anita Devi that they first went to the police station and then to the hospital is not correct.