State of Himachal Pradesh vs Bhagwan Singh Alias Babli

Justice V.K. Ahuja, J.—This is an appeal filed by State of Himachal Pradesh u/s 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 1.8.2003, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him u/s 307 of the IPC. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 16.9.2001, at 10.05 a.m., a statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. was got recorded with the police by one Deepak Tamang. In the said statement, he alleged that at about 9.00 p.m., on the previous night, when he was returning to his home, on the way, he met Babli son of Charan Singh, respondent, with a liquor bottle in his hand. Both of them took liquor and the respondent took him to his house where his mother Misro Devi and his wife were present. It was further alleged that the respondent started quarreling with him and thereafter took an axe and gave a blow over his head. In the meanwhile, Pappy alias Suresh, the younger brother of respondent Babli, also came there and both the brothers quarreled. Blood started oozing out of the injury suffered by the complainant and he became unconscious. His mother learnt about the occurrence and came there and he was taken to the hospital. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, who committed the case to the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court tried the respondent under the Section mentioned above leading to his acquittal.

We have heard Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant and Mr.Mehar Chand, learned counsel for the respondent, and have gone through the record of the case.

On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that it is the case of the prosecution that after the occurrence, PW-2 Sansar Chand and one Bhindu, who were passing from the place, had noticed this occurrence and apprised Vishnu Maya, mother of the injured, and the sister of the injured about the inflicting of blows upon the person Deepak Tamang. The learned trial Court had observed that the conduct of PW-2 Sansar Chand and Bhindu was unnatural since they did not try to provide any help to the injured and on the contrary, one proceeded to inform the mother and another proceeded to inform the sister of the complainant. They even did not raise any hue and cry for calling some assistance or providing some help to the injured. After informing the family members of the injured, both these witnesses vanished from the place of occurrence and, therefore, their conduct was found to be unnatural by the learned trial Court. PW-1 Deepak Tamang does not state that these persons had witnessed the occurrence or were crossing from the place or informed his family members. He simply stated about his accompanying the accused, taking of liquor and the blow having been given on his head and thereafter, the younger brother of the accused came and they started quarreling and he became unconscious.

PW-2 Sansar Chand has clearly stated that he was knowing the accused as well as Deepak. He also stated that he met Bhindu on the way and when they were going near the house of the accused, they saw the accused and Deepak quarreling in the courtyard. The accused went inside, brought an axe and hit the same on the head of Deepak Tamang, who fell down. He further stated that he went to the house of Deepak''s sister to inform her while Bhindu was sent to inform the mother of Deepak. They did not state that they made any attempt to provide assistance to the injured or call nearby persons to apprise them about the occurrence or for providing medical aid to the injured. PW-2 Sansar Chand further stated that he has equal relations with Deepak and the accused. He also stated that there are five houses near the house of the accused. He further stated that he did not raise any alarm on the spot nor tried to save Deepak. He denied the suggestion that he and Bhindu alongwith Deepak took liquor during day time in his house and then went to the house of Nikku to consume liquor. He also stated that he had not met Deepak for 1-1/2 months after the occurrence. The said Bhindu was never examined by the prosecution.

PW-4 Ganesh Bahadur has stated that the younger brother of Deepak came to him and told him that Deepak was lying in the house of Bhagwan in an injured condition. He went to the house of the accused and found Deepak lying injured on a side of the courtyard with an injury on his head. Then the brother of Deepak came with a vehicle. Deepak was unconscious and was murmuring something. They took him to the hospital. He stated that when he reached at the spot, he did not find Bhindu and Sansar Chand there. He stated that the doctor had stated that due to unconsciousness, Deepak is unable to state anything, but denied his knowledge in case this unconsciousness was caused because of heavy drinking.

PW-5 Vishnu Maya is the mother of the injured, who has stated that she was informed at 9.30 or 9.45 p.m. by one Bhindu that Deepak had been inflicted axe blow by the accused. She alongwith her daughter-in-law Meena went to the spot where they found Deepak lying unconscious in a pool of blood having injury on his head. Thereafter, Ganesh and Raju came there and took Deepak in a Van to the hospital. She stated that after informing her, Bhindu went to his house.

The Medical Officer Dr. Dilawar Singh has been examined as PW-6, who examined the injured on 15.9.2001 at 11.00 p.m. and observed 2-1/2" long cut wound on the scalp and the patient was bleeding profusely. In the history given by the Medical officer, it was observed that there was a fight with someone and bleeding from the head. The injured had been brought to the hospital by his younger brother, mother and others and they had been already informed that this injury was inflicted on the person of Deepak by the accused, but it was nowhere mentioned in the history given by the Medical Officer that the person, who caused the injury, was the respondent. It is not mentioned that the patient was unconscious and, therefore, the history was given by someone else or by the patient himself. It is clear that by the time the injured had been examined, his relatives were aware of the fact that he had been given blow by the accused and neither the injured himself nor his relatives mentioned that this injury was inflicted upon the person of the complainant Deepak by the respondent. It has been rightly observed by the learned trial Court that the injury on the scalp was dangerous to life and in case the injured himself was unable to give statement, then the Investigating Officer ought to have recorded the statement of the persons who carried the injured from the spot to the civil hospital. The statement of the injured Ext. PA u/s 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded on the next day at 10.05 a.m. It has been rightly observed by the learned trial Court that in case the patient was unconscious or was unable to make statement, the police should have recorded the version given by any of the relatives and the case should have been registered, but it is only after the injured made the statement on the next day after about 12 hours that the case was registered. The conduct of the principal witnesses was held to be unnatural by the learned trial Court. Therefore, it was observed by the learned trial Court that the possibility cannot be ruled out that Sansar Chand and Bhindu, in order to save their own skin, falsely intimated the family members of the injured that he was hit by the accused with an axe, which conclusion drawn on the basis of the evidence leading to the acquittal of the respondent cannot be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly.