State of Himachal Pradesh vs Karam Singh and Others

Surinder Singh, J.—The respondents hereinafter to be referred as ''the accused'' were acquitted by the learned trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 451 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The State felt aggrieved, as such filed the present appeal. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. The background facts of the case can be stated thus. All the accused persons belong to one family. Injured PW-4, Jasbir Singh is the son of Dalip Singh. Karam Singh is real brother of Dalip Singh and Gurdei wife of Hari Singh, whereas Smt. Sunita Devi accused is the aunt of injured Jasbir Singh.

(i) Injured Jasbir Singh was a driver in some private vehicle. It is alleged that he wanted to have a share in the property of his parents. On 8.10.2004 the accused persons were standing nearby the telephone-pole adjoining the house of the injured and asked him as to why he had abused them. His uncle Karam Singh caught hold and other accused started beatings him with ''dandas'' and also cuffed him. Thereafter they pushed the injured down to the ''khud'' with the intention to take away his life. Had the wife of the injured not taken him to the hospital, he would have died.

(ii) PW-1 Dr. Navneet Dogra, Medical Officer was running a private clinic. He had attended the injured for his injuries on 10.10.2004 and after giving him first aid, discharged him from the hospital next morning. According to him, the injured had received head injury two days back and the record of the treatment is Ext. PW 1/A, which was taken into possession by the police during the investigation of the case. PW-2 Dr. Arvind Kalra Radiologist, took the CT scan of the injured and the report is Ext. PW 2/A, there was nothing serious.

PW-3 Smt. Indira Devi the wife of injured, Jasbir Singh, stated that on 8.10.2004 she was sitting in her room and accused Karam Singh started abusing her without any rhyme or reason. According to her, prior to the occurrence her husband was beaten by all the accused persons for none of his fault. She further stated that around about 11:30 p.m. during night, when her husband was coming home, all the accused persons caught hold of him near telephone-pole and dragged him upto the verandah of their house and gave beatings. She tried to rescue her husband, but all the accused persons did not let him off. Thereafter she did not know where her husband was taken. In the morning, she found her husband below ''dhank'', when her mother-in-law and two ''devers'' (brother-in-laws) had gone in search of him. Thereafter injured was taken to Sanjeevni Hospital, Chamba, his condition was critical. He was unconscious and remained so for a week. Thereafter she went to Police Post, Nakrod to lodge the report, but the police did not register the complaint on account of delay. Thereafter she got drafted a complaint, Ext. PW 3/A from an advocate at Chamba, which culminated into the present FIR. She admitted in her cross-examination that she alongwith her husband were living separately for the last 2-3 years. She stated that her father-in-law and accused Karam Singh had hired vehicle to take him to hospital and accused Dalip Singh and Karam Singh also accompanied the injured for his treatment in the hospital. Even they took her husband to Pathankot hospital for further treatment but next day the injured was discharged. She stated that after discharge from the hospital, injured was not taken to hospital. She stated that her husband regained consciousness after about 2-3 months and then again stated that he had regained little consciousness after about a week. She admitted that the contents of complaint Ext. PW 3/A were read over and explained to her by her Advocate, Shri Ajay Rathore, who had drafted the same. She stated that accused Dalip Singh had been residing in the ground floor, while she alongwith her husband were residing on the first floor of the house, whereas accused Karam Singh had been residing in his house at a distance of about 100 feet. She admitted that her husband had been taking liquor occasionally, but denied that after taking the liquor, he used to abuse the accused persons. She also stated that on hearing noise, she came to the ground floor and saw that all the accused persons were giving merciless beatings to her husband in the verandah. She specifically admitted that her husband used to demand his share in the property from accused Dalip Singh, but never asserted his right under the influence of liquor.

PW-4 Jasbir Singh is the injured person. He had tried to substantiate his version regarding the beatings given to him by the accused persons. In his cross-examination he stated that he did not disclose the fact of giving beatings by all the accused persons to the police and denied that he used to claim himself as a big boss. He stated that accused Gurdei, his grandmother had given slaps to him on his face, but she was not carrying any stick with her. Accused Sunita, his aunt had also given beating with a small stick. He was confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to the above fact that accused Sunil had given beating to him but this fact did not find mention therein Ex. DA. He denied that he never came to his house under the influence of liquor, but admitted that he did take liquor occasionally. He denied that his uncle Karam Singh and Gurdei grandmother as well as aunt Sunita Devi had forbidden him not to call names, but admitted that there remains a dispute between him and his father about the share of property. He also stated that though his father Dalip Singh was present on the spot, but at that time no conversation took place between them. His father instigated other accused persons to give him beatings. He also stated that his father was touching his body with his hands and when the injured was confronted with his statement, Ext. DA, this did not find mention therein. Again he has contradicted the prosecution story as well as the statement of his wife by saying that he remained admitted in the hospital for 2/3 days at Pathankot and also stated that he remained confined in his house for about 3-4 months. He further stated that during this time when he remained at home his wife used to take care of him and bring the medicines from a doctor at Pathankot.

PW-5 Shri Bhupinder is another eye witness of the alleged incident. He is the real brother of injured Jasbir Singh, who was at the relevant time working with Bhindi alias D.S. Thakur, contractor and injured Jasbir Singh was also employed with him as a driver. Both were working at Kandla at a distance of 4 KMS from his native place. He admitted that there was a curve in front of their house, but denied that whenever his brother used to return his house, he used to call his wife from that curve. He further stated that at the time of occurrence he was sleeping on the first floor of his house. He heard the noise of beatings from his house near the house of the accused persons, but it was complete dark and no electricity light. There was a ''dhank'' nearby to their house. When he reached the spot, accused Karam Singh, Gurdei and Sunita were present in the house, who had given fist blows to the injured and he did not ask any reason of giving such beatings to the injured. Thereafter his father (accused) had reached the spot on hearing the noise. He further stated that injured Jasbir Singh gave a push to his father. He again contradicted the statement of his brother by saying that he never took any liquor, whereas this fact was admitted by him as well as by the wife of the injured. Pertinently, he stated that he did not disclose this incident to any person till that day, however, he admitted that on the next morning when his father went to the ''gharat'' he found injured Jasbir Singh lying below the ''dhank''. Even he did not say that it was his wife and other brothers, who had located him just below the ''gharat''. He admitted that he was also present with his brother on the previous day in the court. His statement becomes doubtful when he did not disclose the fact of beatings to any of the members in his village. He admitted that when the injured was located by his father below the ''dhank'', he alongwith his brother Karam Singh, (accused) took him to the hospital at Pathankot in the vehicle for his treatment. He denied the defence raised that his father used to tell the injured that he would provide the share to him on the ground that let the children grow up, thereafter he would get partitioned the property.

PW-9 Bimla Devi is the witness to the recovery of Danda, Ext. P-1, but she did not support the case of the prosecution. Rather in her cross-examination she stated that injured Jasbir Singh was a liquor addict and used to take too much liquor and didn''t know about the quarrel between the injured and the accused persons.

In their statements u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure all the accused persons denied the circumstances which were found attendant upon each of them. While maintaining their innocence, they stated that injured Jasbir Singh aforesaid was a drunkard, who used to loose his control under intoxication and must have fallen down from the ''dhank'' and received injuries. They further stated that the injured had been demanding the share of his property during the lifetime of Dalip Singh, his father. When called upon to enter into their defence, no witness in defence was examined by them.

On the careful examination of the aforesaid evidence, we find inconsistencies, material discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Firstly, the case with respect to the alleged incident as propounded by the prosecution witnesses could not be established by cogent and reliable evidence. Secondly, the conduct of the injured himself was in question, as he used to abuse his family members by claiming himself that he was a driver of his own style and had been demanding the property from his father during his lifetime. Thirdly, it is also proved on record that he was a liquor addict and in intoxication he must be threatening the accused persons on his visit to his house. There is also evidence that near the house of the injured there was a curve. Fourthly, the alleged incident had taken place on 8th October, 2004 and as per the case of the prosecution he was removed by the accused persons the very next morning, but PW-1 Dr. Nevneet Dogra stated that he was brought on 10th October, 2004 for his treatment and the injuries show that only minor injuries were sustained by him. Fifthly, there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the wife of the injured and his brother, whose testimonies have been discussed above and both are denying the presence of each other and not only that even PW-5 Bhupinder stated that accused Dalip was not on the spot and he came later and is also silent about the pushing of the injured from the cliff.

In the light of the aforesaid critical and careful examination of the prosecution evidence, we do not find it a case worth any interference as also it lacks motive of picking up the quarrel inter se, who are otherwise residing separately. It is also evident from the documents Ext. PW 1/B that his father Dalip, uncle Karam Singh and sister of the injured had signed the consent memo for the treatment of the injured on 10.10.2004. Thus, in these attending circumstances when the accused persons had taken the injured for his treatment, the intention to murder Jasbir Singh, does not arise at all. The complaint Ext. PW 3/A and the version of the witnesses are also contradictory. The prosecution story as propounded by the complainant Smt. Indira Devi, which is the result of due deliberations and consideration, therefore, we find no fault in the findings of the learned trial court, as such we are unable to convert the acquittal into conviction. The appeal of the State sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds entered upon by the accused persons during the proceedings of the case are hereby discharged.