State of H.P. vs Brikam Chand and Another

Sanjay Karol, J.—For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 10.7.1997, accused were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 25.3.2000, passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ani, District Kullu, H.P., in Case No. 110-2 of 97 titled as State of H.P. v. Brikam Chand and another, accused stand acquitted of the charged offence.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.7.1997 the complainant Mehar Singh (PW-1) had come out of his house to answer the call of nature. Suddenly, accused Brikam Chand and Mahender Singh appeared on the scene and started giving him beating with iron rod. Complainant cried for help and hearing his cries Devi Ram (PW-2) came at the spot and rescued him from the clutches of the accused. Complainant fell unconscious on the ground and Devi Ram brought him to his house. The matter was reported to the police by the complainant on 15.7.1997, on the basis of which FIR No. 46 (Ext.PW6/A), dated 15.7.1997 was registered with Police Station, Ani under Sections 325/34 IPC. The complainant was got medically examined by the police by Dr. G.D. Guar (PW-4) and Dr. Ajay Sharma (PW-5) who issued ML Cs (Ext.PW4/A) and (Ex/PW5/A), respectively. Dhani Ram handed over iron rod (Ext.P1) to the police. Complainant suffered serious injuries and fracture on his right arm. The matter was investigated and with the completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court for trial.

The accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 326 read with Section 34 IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses and the statements of the accused u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded in which they pleaded false implication.

The Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offences, hence the present appeal.

In support of its case prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, being the only independent witnesses. All others are official witnesses including police 3 officials. Having carefully scrutinized the statements of the relevant witnesses we feel that trial Court has correctly appreciated their testimonies and no case for interference is made out. We feel that contradictions on record are glaring and material.

PW-1 has not explained the inordinate delay in reporting the matter to the police. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 10th of July 1997 and yet FIR was recorded on 15th of July, 1997.

According to PW-1 he had stepped out of his house at about 11.00 P.M. to answer the call of nature, whereas in the FIR time recorded is 12.30 (A.M.). Contradiction may be minor but stands magnified and becomes significant when considered in the background of other contradiction. In FIR, PW-1 got recorded that both the accused hit him with an iron rod, but however, in Court he states that accused Brikam caught him and only accused Mahinder Singh hit him with an iron rod. Not only that, he contradicts his version by further stating that it was so dark that he could not see the weapon of offence. He resiled from his earlier version by not stating that when the accused hit him with the rod, he fell on the ground and become unconscious. According to PW-1 he first went to the hospital and then reported the matter to the police which version stands contradicted by PW-2, according to whom they first went to the police station at about 5.00 A.M. and then went to the hospital later on. Further, according to PW-1, while fleeing accused threw the weapon of offence i.e. saria on the road which was picked up by the police, whereas according to PW-2 the same was handed over by him to the police. We further find version of PW-1 not to be inspiring confidence as in his earlier statement he got recorded that blood stained clothes could not be handed over to the police for the reason that he had washed them, whereas in Court he states that they were shown to the police but they did not take them.

The accused had 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 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.