STATE OF H.P. Vs. MEHAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS were sent up for trial for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 326, Indian Penal Code, for allegedly causing injuries and grievous injuries to Laxmipal on 9-6-1991 at a place called Gugga Saloh in Palampur Sub Division. According to the prosecution story, on the aforesaid date around 10.00 a.m, when injured Laxmipal accompanied by Sat Pal (PW2) and one Rattan Lal his father's brother was clearing garbage from his land situate near the house of the respondents, respondent Champa Devi went there and questioned Laxmi Pal and his companions as to why the direction of the drain carrying foul water from their kitchen had been diverted and a banana tree felled. She was told by Laxmi Pal that let her husband Mehar Chand respondent come and talk to them. Champa Devi then went to her house and re-appeared with her husband Mehar Chand. Mehar Chand and Laxmi Pal had some talk. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. Thereafter Mehar Chand went back to his house. After some time, Mehar Chand, accompanied by his wife Champa Devi and respondent Savitri, re- appeared at the scene. Savitri was carrying a Drat. She handed over that Drat to respondent Mehar Chand, then she held Laxmi Pal (PW1) by his testicles, respondent Champa Devi held him by his arm while Mehar Chand inflicted a blow of drat on the nose of Laxmi Pal. The blow resulted in fracture of bridge of the nose.

(2.) TRIAL Court charged the respondents for voluntarily causing hurts and grievous hurt to Laxmi Pal and on their pleading not guilty, tried them for the said offences. At the end of the trial, all the respondents were acquitted with the findings that it was not likely that the injury, in question, on the nose could have been caused with the drat and that the independent witnesses, available on the spot, had not been examined. Trial Court also observed that the plea of the respondents that Laxmi Pal (PW1) received the injury on the nose with a 'Phawra' which he himself was carrying, appears to be probable. We have gone through the record and heard the learned Additional Advocate General.

(3.) THE aforesaid contradictions apart, plea taken by the respondents that PW1 Laxmi Pal received the injury when the 'Phawra' which he was carrying to change the direction of the drain hit him in a scuffle with respondent Mehar Chand, is probablised by the evidence on record. Dr. V.K. Sood (PW3) who examined PW1 even though stated that the injury was possible with the drat Exhibit P4, i.e, alleged weapon of offence, at the same time he admitted that if the injuries were caused with drat Exhibit P4, some other injury was also supposed to have resulted on the face of PW1 Laxmi Pal. He admitted that the injury could have been received in a scuffle with a Phawra, held by PW1 himself.