Gian Dei vs Jai Kishan And Another

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

The complainant has assailed the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. dated 03.06.2009, acquitting respondent No.1-Jai Kishan, from the charges leveled against him under Sections 451, 323, 325, 405 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

The appellant in her statement recorded on 2. 07.2001 under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure stated that while she was placing fodder for her cattle, the daughters of respondent No.1-Jai Kishan started spitting on her from the window of their house. The complainant asked them not to do so. Upon this, respondent No.1-Jai Kishan came to the spot, holding a danda (stick) in his hand and abused the complainant. She further alleged that respondent No.1-Jai Kishan assaulted her with the stick on her hand. This caused injuries to her finger. Respondent No.1-Jai Kishan also bit her head and dragged her from her hair. Upon raising alarm, one Ishro Devi came to the spot alongwith other villagers and rescued her.

Learned Trial Court convicted the respondent vide judgment dated 25.05.2007 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

In my considered view, learned Appellate Court had rightly held that there were various material discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses: -

4(i). The complainant herself has contradicted her version on various aspects. In the FIR, she had stated that the site of occurrence of offence was just outside her cow shed, whereas, while deposing in the Court as PW-1 the site of occurrence was stated to be court-yard of her house.

4(ii). The contradictions are there even about the injuries stated to be suffered by the complainant. In her deposition, the complainant stated that she had received injuries from a stick blow given by respondent No.1-Jai Kishan, aimed at her head, which caused injury to the finger next to the thumb of her left hand. Whereas, testimony of PW-7-Radiographer shows that the injury was detected on the ring finger of the complainant. PW-7 has not clarified or specified as to whether the ring finger, which she has stated to have suffered injury was next to the thumb of left hand, as deposed by the complainant. The testimony of the complainant that her finger next to the thumb received injury was not corroborated by this witness.

4(iii). The contradiction is also there in the statements of the complainant and Ishro Devi (PW-2) stated to be the eyewitness. According to the complainant (PW-1), she had already been inflicted danda (stick) blow by the accused, when Ishro Devi arrived at the site of occurrence after hearing hue and cry made by her (complainant). Whereas, Ishro Devi in her statement deposed that she was at the site of occurrence and had seen respondent No.1-Jai Kishan inflicting danda (stick) blow on the portion of body of the complainant. She not only contradicted the complainant, but also tried to improve upon the latter’s version.

4(iv). PW-6, Roshan Lal, the other eyewitness to the occurrence deposed that none was there at the site by the time he and Rameshwar Dutt reached there.

4(v). Husband of the complainant Jagdish Chand (PW-3) stated that respondent No.1-Jai Kishan had not only caught hold of complainant’s hair, but had also pulled and dragged her from her hair, due to which, complainant sustained dragging marks on her person. Such statement is not corroborated by the medical evidence. Even otherwise, such deposition was an improvement over the versions of complainant (PW - 1) and Ishro Devi (PW-2)

The learned Appellate Court justly took notice of the major discrepancies and material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and held that the finding of conviction returned by the learned Trial Court against respondent No.1 was not in order. Hence, I find no merit in the instant appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.

The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.