STATE OF H.P. Vs. PURAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala dated 30.9.1999 vide which the accused was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 325 and 506 IPC.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on 13.7.1996 at about 10.30 p.m., a report was lodged with the police by one Shakti Chand that he runs a vegetable shop at Shahpur. At about 4.45 p.m. on the same day he had gone to Gagal to sell mangoes but since he was getting less rate he came back. He got down from the jeep at 8.45 p.m. and Puran Chand met him and asked him from where he has come. He told him that he had gone to sell mangoes but since he was getting less rate, he came back. He and Puran Chand started walking towards their houses and when they reached near khud, Puran Chand caught hold of him and told him that he tries to be clever and will see him today and will kill him. Puran Chand caught hold of his arm and gave a bite on his hand. He raised an alarm his sons Waryam Singh and Sukhvinder Singh reached there and accused took his little finger in his mouth and cut it with a tooth bite. He became unconscious and when he regained consciousness, he saw both of his sons present there. He further alleged that his both sons and Chowkidar Madho Ram had seen Puran Chand running from the spot and accused threw the portion of his little finger somewhere and a report was lodged with the police. The respondent was tried under the above sections resulting in his acquittal, hence this appeal.

(3.) THE submissions made by the learned Deputy Advocate General were that the complainant could not be examined since he died during the trial of the case and two of the alleged independent witnesses turned hostile. But both the sons of the complainant have materially corroborated the version given by the complainant in his report lodged with the police, but the learned trial court by a surprise conclusion did not refer to their testimonies or the infirmities, if any, by simply observing since they are interested witnesses being the relatives of the complainant and therefore their statements were not relied upon and the respondent was acquitted though there was sufficient evidence on record oral as well as medical to prove the guilt of the respondent and therefore those findings can be said to be perverse and are liable to be reversed.