STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. DORGGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the judgment dated 14.03.2014, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in RBT S.C. No. 13 -D/VII/2013, titled as State Versus Dorggal, whereby accused stands acquitted, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) It is the case of prosecution that on 25.11.2012, Rajender Kumar (P.W. 7) a police Constable, who was on leave, had gone to attend the marriage of his cousin at Mecleodganj. On his way back, when he reached the Tibetan security office, situate on Bagsu road, he saw accused Dorggal hitting the doors and windows of the security office. When questioned, without any provocation, accused gave a blow with a knife, as a result of which, he sustained injuries on his body. Thereafter, accused immediately fled away from the spot. Finding Rajender Kumar to be bleeding profusely, passersby Ashok Kumar and Surender Kumar (not examined) took him to the Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala. On the basis of the statement of Rajender Kumar (Ex. P.W. 7/A), FIR No. 101 of 2012, dated 25.11.2012 (Ex. P.W. 9/A), under the provisions of Ss. 324 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code, stood registered at Police Station, Mecleodganj, District Kangra, H.P. Ashwani Kumar (P.W. 11) conducted the investigation. MLC (Ex. P.W. 5/E) was taken on record as also clothes belonging to the victim were taken into possession. The accused was arrested and his blood stained clothes also taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex. P.W. 4/A). Clothes belonging to the accused and the victim were sent for scientific analysis and report whereof, taken on record. Presence of the accused on the spot was also noticed by Mohinder Kapoor (P.W. 1), Lucky Kumar (P.W. 2), Rachhpal Singh (P.W. 3) and Vinod Kumar (P.W. 13). MLC, so issued by Dr. Sanjeev Kumar (P.W. 14), was taken on record by the police. Scientific evidence established the prosecution case. With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, Challan was presented in the Court for trial.

(3.) Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Sec. 307 of IPC, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.