State of Himachal Pradesh vs Ram Saran and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 23.05.1997, accused were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 16.9.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla Circuit Court at Rohru, H.P., in Sessions trial No. 4-S/7 of 1999 titled as State of H.P. v. Ram Saran and other, the accused stand acquitted of the charged offences.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.5.1997 one Jatinder Lal made a complaint with the police at Police Post Chirgaon that his sheep were stolen by the accused. SI Bir Singh (PW-5),in the presence of Jatinder Lal (PW-1) and Milap Singh (not examined) called the accused for interrogation. At about 2 p.m. when the accused were being interrogated accused Ram Saran gave a blow with a sharp edged weapon on the right side of the neck of Bir Singh. Bir Singh tried to save himself. Accused Ram Saran was caught by the other police officials present at the spot but accused Hari Singh and Jumbi Ram managed to escape from there. Bir Singh reported the matter to the police at Police Station Rohru and entry (Ext.PW-3/A) was made in the rojnamcha on the basis of which FIR 110/1997 (Ext.6/F) dated 23.5.97 was recorded under Sections 307, 353, 332, I.P.C. at Police Station Rohru. Bir Singh was got medically examined by Dr. Munish Kumar Saroch (PW-10), who issued M.L.C. (Ext.PW-10/A). Doctor opined that injuries suffered by Bir Singh were sufficient to cause death as vital vessels were in the vicinity of the incised cut. Blood stained clothes of Bir Singh i.e., shirt (Ext.P-2) and pant (Ext.P-3) were seized by the police and sent for chemical examination and report (Ext.PW-6/E) obtained. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial.

Accused Ram Saran was charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 307, 332, 225B, I.P.C. and accused Hari Saran and Jumbi Ram (accused No. 2 and 3) were charged for having committed an offence punishable u/s 225-B, IPC. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case prosecution examined 10 witnesses and statements of accused u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded in which accused Ram Saran took the following defence:

S.I. Bir Singh was harassing me, Jambi Ram and Hari Saran by calling to the police post regularly for the last three days and he was forcing to confess the guilt of theft. On the day of occurrence when S.I. Bir Singh started questioning us he was badly drunked and when he started beating me, he could not balance himself under the influence of liquor. He struck against a wooden pole having a sharp edged nails fixed for hanging rope for clothes and he received injuries on his neck by striking against the said nails. Immediately I felt frightened and in order to save myself, I ran away from the spot towards the Pabar river. The police people when searched me and could not locate they thought that I might not jumped into the river and commit suicide and therefore, they instituted this false case against me, Jambi Ram and Saran Dass.

Other accused took the defence of false implication.

Court below acquitted the accused of the charged We may notice that independent witness Jatinder offence. Hence the present appeal.

Lal (PW-1) and Hira Singh (PW-2) have not supported the prosecution at all. They were declared hostile and in spite of extensive cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor nothing fruitful could come out from their testimonies. We may also observe that from the unrebutted testimony of Hira Singh (PW-2) it stands proved that accused were called for interrogation and accused Ram Saran was given beatings by the S.I. Importantly PW-1 is the complainant of the complaint in relation to which accused were interrogated by the police.

Except for the complainant Bir Singh (PW-5) and Dr. Munish Kumar Saroch (PW-10) all other witnesses are police officials and their testimonies are formal in nature.

Bir Singh (PW-5) was got medically examined by Dr. Munish Kumar Saroch (PW-10), who found the following injury on his body:

1 cm x 1 cm. x .5 cm incised cut on right side of the neck. Blood was oozing from the said injury and the blood was present on dress

Though Doctor states that injury was simple in nature but qualifies by stating that it "could have been dangerous to life as important vessels were lying near it". Now in the medical report (Ext.PW-10/A), this fact is missing. It seems his opinion is not based on his medical examination conducted at the spot.

In any event, prosecution has to link this injury with the alleged assault made by the accused. In this regard statement of PW-5 needs to be examined. Having minutely examined the statement of PW-5 we feel that defence taken by the accused is probable. Witness specifically state that he could not identify the weapon with which he was assaulted by the accused. This version is unbelievable. Accused were being interrogated in the presence of other police officials. They have not been examined in the Court. Why so, has not been explained. There must be other independent witnesses present at the spot. We further find that version of this witness is contradicted by other evidence on record. According to him, when blow with the weapon was given right side of his collar was cut. However, when the trial Court opened the parcel containing shirt (Ext.P-2) it found that the cut was on the pocket of the right side and not on the collar. This renders the prosecution case to be extremely doubtful. Further blood found on the shirt and the pant has not been proved to be that of Bir Singh (PW-5). PW-5 admits that shop of tea vendor is just at a distance of 9-10 ft. from the place of occurrence of alleged crime. Even this person has not been associated. The alleged offence took place in broad day light. Version of PW-5 is highly improbable. It has come on record that the place where investigation was going on, shops were open and people were present. Surprisingly police did not associate any person from immediate neighbourhood. It chose to associate the complainant, who originally made the complaint against the accused persons and even he has not supported the prosecution story.

The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Md. Ankoos and Others Vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused persons has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.