State of Himachal Pradesh vs Umar Din and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 22.07.2003, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (I), Dharamshala, acquitted the accused of having committed offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story, as initially set out, was that complainant Dev Raj (PW-2) lodged a report with the police on 7.8.2001 to the effect that on the previous date, i.e. 6.8.2001, at about 5.00 p.m., he alongwith his wife, Bassero Devi (PW-3) was returning from the house of PW-4, Gian Chand. At a little distance from the house of Gian Chand, accused Umar Din came from the maize fields with an axe in his hand and gave a blow of the axe on the head of the complainant. Thereafter, Umar Din''s wife, Usma Bibi; his sons, Kaka Din and Bir Din; daughter, Aruna Bibi and mother, Hasni Devi came on the spot with dandas in their hands and gave beatings to the complainant and his wife. The complainant became unconscious and fell in the fields. On hearing the cries raised by the complainant and his wife, PW-4, Gian Chand, PW-8, Shiv Kumar and one Tulsi Devi rushed to the spot and saved them from the clutches of the aforesaid six accused persons. The complainant allegedly suffered injuries on his head and his wife, PW-3, Bassero Devi, suffered injuries on her shoulders and other parts of the body. Initially an entry with regard to this complaint was entered in the daily diary vide report Ex, PW-2/A, and on this basis, FIR, Ex. PW-2/B, was registered. The complainant and his wife were got medically examined through the Medical Officer (PW-1), who issued the MLCs, Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/B in this behalf. Other investigation was carried out and, thereafter, the accused persons were charged with having committed the offences aforesaid. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial, they were acquitted, hence this appeal by the State.

The main reason which has weighed with the learned trial Court is that the complainant and his wife have given totally different version while appearing in Court and hence, no reliance can be placed on their testimonies.

The initial prosecution version has been set out in detail hereinabove. It would suffice to mention that the case set out was that the complainant, Dev Raj, was given an axe blow on his head by accused, Umar Din, and, thereafter, all the other five accused came on the spot and gave blows of dandas to both, the complainant and his wife.

The version given in Court is totally different. According to the complainant (PW-2) when they were returning from the house of PW-4, Bir Din pulled the Dupatta of his wife (PW-3). Thereupon the complainant asked Bir Din what he was doing. Immediately thereafter, Umar Din came and gave a blow of the axe on the head of the complainant and he, thereafter, fell down on the ground. This is a totally different version from the version first given that Umar Din came from the maize fields and gave a blow of the axe. Whereas in the First Information Report, it was stated that accused, Bir Din, was carrying a danda, while appearing in Court, the complainant stated that the accused Bir Din was holding a Darat in his hand. Further, in the FIR, the complainant had mentioned that all six accused have come to the spot and Umar Din had given a blow of the axe and other accused had given danda blows to him and his wife. While appearing in the witness box, the complainant stated that except Umar Din and Bir Din, none of the other accused were present on the spot. He also clearly states that Bir Din did not give any beating.

Another important factor is that whereas in Court, this witness states that Bir Din pulled his wife''s Dupatta, but in the original statement this version did not find mention. PW-4 and PW-8 are related to the complainant and his wife. Most importantly, the complainant himself was arrested about a year earlier in connection with the murder of the father of Umar Din.

PW-3, Bassero Devi, has given a version similar to that of her husband, however, she has also made another improvement. According to her, when her husband, Dev Raj, asked Bir Din why he was pulling her Dupatta, then Bir Din replied that he wanted to suck her blood. This version is totally different to that of the husband. There is no other eye witness to the incident, though, the other witnesses, who were closely related to the complainant and his wife do state that they had saved the complainant and his wife from the clutches of the accused. The complainant himself was suspected of murdering the father of Umar Din. Therefore, the relation between the parties are inimical. In such circumstances, his evidence had to be scrutinized with great care and caution.

As pointed out above, there are innumerable improvements made by the complainant and his wife while appearing in Court. Even the statement of PW-4 and PW-8 do not support the version of the complainant. As pointed out above, Dev Raj states that other than Umar Din and Bir Din, none else was present at the spot. However, PW-4 states that when he alongwith his wife reached the spot, Umar Din was holding an axe, Bir Din was holding a Darat and the other ladies were holding dandas in their hands and were beating the wife of the complainant. The version given by PW-8 is different. Whereas the complainant states that Bir Din had not attacked anybody, according to this witness, Bir Din gave a blow of a Darat to Bassero Devi.

Keeping in view these inherent contradictions in the statements of the complainant and his witnesses and keeping in view the fact that the complainant himself was earlier arrested for the murder of the father of Umar Din, the learned trial Court was fully justified in not relying upon the testimonies of the complainant and his wife and acquitting the accused persons. This is a view which was a plausible view. This view cannot be said to be perverse and we, therefore, find no reason to interfere in the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds discharged.