State of H.P. vs Dharam Chand and Others

Surinder Singh, J.—Respondents faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC, and were acquitted, by the learned trial Court, on the ground that the injury in question could not be connected having been caused by the Respondents. The State felt aggrieved, hence the present appeal.

Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that on 11.6.1997 at about 9.15 PM, Rachna Devi, injured, visited Police station and made a complaint that around 6 PM she had gone to the fields to cut the grass and noticed that the cattle of the Respondents were destroying the crop in her fields. She goaded them out of her land and brought in the road. On this, the Respondents Dharam Chand and Kesri Devi felt offended and gave beatings with Danda and fisticuffed her. They were later joined by Respondents Piar Chand and Shakuntala Devi. They pushed her, with the result she fell down. Thereafter, Dharam Chand, Respondent, gave a blow of stone Ex P-1 on her head, which caused a bleeding injury. She raised hue and cry by which Giano and P.W. 5 Sheela got attracted and rescued the injured/complainant.

On the above report lodged in the Police station, police started investigation. Complainant, Rachna Devi was got medically examined and the injury on her head was found to be on the vital organ of the body which could cause to death. Therefore, the Respondents were charge-sheeted, tried for the offences aforesaid and at the end of the trial, they were acquitted. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General led us through the evidence and submitted that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in right perspective. We have considered the submission and scanned the evidence.

It is pertinent to note that on the medical examination of Smt. Rachna Devi, conducted by (P.W. 1) Dr. Harjinder Singh, on the same day around 10.45 PM, he noticed the following injuries:

(i) There was a cut wound in the scalp left temporal region 5 cm x 1 cm approximately having clotted blood. There was a tenderness, but no bone crepitos. Margins of the wounds were found well defined;

(ii) Injured also complained the pain in the left side of the hip, but no swelling was there. However, she was unable to walk.

The aforesaid injuries were subject to the X-ray examination, but no fracture was detected. But from the nature of injury No. 1, the doctor opined that it was caused with sharp edged weapon while injury No. 2 with a blunt weapon. Pertinently there was no allegation having used a sharp weapon by the Respondents.

The injured was also referred to PGI, Chandigarh for the management of the head injury. Her out patient ticket is Ex P.D. The injury in question was opined to be grievous in nature.

We find that the medical evidence is just apposite to the statement of the injured witness, as the injured witness and P.W. 5 Sheela Devi stated having caused this injury with the stone Ex P-1 by Dharam Chand aforesaid, whereas P.W. 1 Dr. Harjinder Singh, who had examined the injured, over ruled the possibility of having caused the injury in question with the stone aforesaid. Thus, his testimony destroys the entire fabric of the prosecution case, therefore, the offence charged could not be established beyond doubt. Since the injury in question has not been inflicted in the manner stated by the witnesses aforesaid, in that event, even the presence of P.W. 5 Sheela Devi on the spot also becomes doubtful. Further P.W. 1 Dr. Harjinder Singh has also stated that injury No. 1 was not on the vital part of the body and P.W. 2 Dr. Manish Singh, who treated her in the PGI, Chandigarh, stated that all the scans with respect to injury in question were found normal and drowsiness to the injured could be attributable to the medicines prescribed. The injury in question cannot be connected with any of the Respondents.

Thus, against the aforesaid background, neither offence of attempted murder nor of causing voluntarily hurt by a sharp edged weapon for which the Respondents were charge-sheeted, stands proved on record. As such, the prosecution case was rightly rejected by the learned trial Court, disbelieving the prosecution witnesses. We do not find anything to convert the acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court into conviction, as such, the appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.

The Respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered by them at any time during the proceedings of this case. Send down the records.