STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. PURSHOTAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment of acquittal passed in Criminal Case No 129-2/95, dated 3.5.1999, under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Nurpur, has been assailed in this appeal by the State-appellant, precisely on the ground that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in the right perspective. Had it been properly seen, the result would have been different.

(2.) LEAVE to appeal was granted by this Court on 27.4.2000. Now the matter has been finally heard. I have heard Shri V.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and Shri Bimal Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents and have reappraised the evidence on record.

(3.) TO prove its case, the Prosecution examined PW1 Onkar Singh, PW2 Dr. Sanjay Mahajan, PW3, Janak Singh, PW4 Waryam Singh, PW5 Gagan Singh, complainant, PW6 Padu Ram, PW7 Satwant Singh, Additional Station House Officer and PW8 ASI Sharif Mohammed, Investigating Officer. The cause of alleged incident has not been spelt out by any of the witnesses nor explained in the report submitted under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The father of the complainant Janak Singh (PW3) had tried to lend assurance to the case of the complainant by marking his presence at the time of alleged incident, but in the cross- examination, he has stated that there was none including himself in the house when the respondents came to his house to call Gagan Singh. He was also confronted with his statement Mark X, wherein, it was also not recorded that the injuries were inflicted to the complainant in his presence. According to Waryam Singh (PW4), he intervened when he saw his brother Gagan Singh (PW5) was being dragged towards the house of accused and was given a darati blow. In cross- examination, he has stated that he did not know the cause of the incident. Even PW5 Gagan Singh has stated that darati shown to him was not the same and the spade was also having the same without iron portion of it, which were not those when exhibited. It is noticed that there were two persons and the weapons used were allegedly three but the manner in which those were used have not been stated. It is admitted by the said witness that with respect to the same incident, respondent Purshotam Singh had also lodged a report against him, as well as his brother Waryam Singh and father Janak Singh, which is pending. This fact was admitted by the Investigating Officer (PW8) in his statement. Ext.D1 is said to be the photocopy of that complaint but the trial court has not put the exhibit thereon. Further the fact of dragging towards the compound of the respondents was not disclosed in the FIR. PW6 Padu Ram has not supported the case of the prosecution.