NAVEEN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the Appellant against the judgment of the Court of ld. Adll. District & Sessions Judge (1) Kangra at Dharamshala dated 30.10.1999 vide which the appellant was held guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 6.11.1997 at about 4.15 P.M. an information was received from the Medical Officer, CHC, Indora at the Police Station that one person named Sunil Kumar has been admitted with possible stab injuries in abdomen. On this, information, PW-9 ASI Avtar Chand, Police Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Station, Indora went to the CHC, Indora , gave an application to the Medical Officer and took his opinion that the injured was fit to make a statement. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the injured who stated to have received two injuries with knife. The said statement was sent to the Police Station on which a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed as against the appellant under Section 307 IPC. The appellant was tried under Section 307 IPC and on conclusion of the trial, he was held guilty under Section 324 IPC and was convicted and sentenced as detailed above.

(3.) THE submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant were that the case has been falsely made out against the appellant on the basis of enmity. It was submitted that there was no occasion for the appellant to cause injuries on the person of the injured. The appellant did not mention the name of the assailant at the time of his Medico Legal Examination or before the Medical Officer at Private Hospital where he went after his first medical examination at CHC, Indora. Thus, it was submitted that inspite of the opportunities given to him to name the assailant, he did not name the assailant before the two Medical Officers, who examined him. In his report to the specialist and at the time of medical examination, he had stated to have received one injury on his stomach and one on his back which finds support from first Medico Legal Report at CHC Indora. Injury on the left side of the chest was also sought to be proved from the statement of the Medical Officer running a private clinic who for the first time stated about the third injury. Thus, it was submitted that the injured had not named the appellant as assailant at the first two opportunities which were available with him and the medical evidence does not corroborate his statement and as such, his statement coupled with medical evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.