State of H.P. vs Kali Dass and Others

V.K. Ahuja, J.—This is an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh u/s 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kangra, dated 20.3.2003, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 147, 148, 447 and 324 of the IPC.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 27.9.1993, at about 10.45 a.m., a rapat was lodged with the police by the complainant Ranjeet Singh. He alleged therein that today at about 9.00 a.m., he was cutting the paddy crop in his fields accompanied by his sister Binta Devi. The accused persons came there and Kali Dass, respondent, gave a blow with an axe on his head while the other accused persons gave beatings to him with dandas. He raised an alarm and one Madan Lal, who is related to him, came to the spot and rescued him. Thereafter, a report was lodged with the police and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondents leading to their acquittal.

I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents and have gone through the record of the case.

On appraisal of the record of the case, it is very much clear that the statement of the complainant PW-1 Ranjeet Singh was that he was given an axe blow over his head and he referred to only one injury with the axe. However, the Medical Officer, PW-5 Dr. Mohinder Singh, stated about two injuries, i.e. injuries No. 1 and 2, having been inflicted with a sharp weapon. Therefore, the medical evidence does not support the version of the complainant. The complainant PW-2 also did not state the number of injuries approximately inflicted upon by the respondents with dandas. However, the Medical Officer has stated that injuries No. 3 and 4 were caused with blunt weapon. The case of the prosecution all along has been that the blow over the head was given with an axe but the Investigating Officer, for the reasons best known to him, effected the recovery of a drat and also the prosecution examined two witnesses to the recovery of the drat. The weapon of offence i.e. axe was not taken in possession and in its place, the recovery was made of drat about which there is no reference in the statement of the witnesses.

Apart from the above, the possession of the land was also disputed, as has come up in evidence. The accused had tendered in evidence Exts.DA and DB to prove that the possession of the land in question was disputed since the order of status quo was passed in regard to the land over which the paddy was being cut by the complainant. There was only two eye witnesses to the occurrence, namely, PW-3 Madan Lal and Binta Devi, sister of the complainant, but the prosecution had failed to examine the said Binta Devi, who was a material witness and on account of her non-examination, an adverse inference has to be drawn for not examining the material witness. PW-3 Madan Lal was a relative of the complainant and there is nothing as to how he was present at the spot at the time of occurrence.

Keeping in view the above discussion, it is clear that the final conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court leading to the acquittal of the respondents cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court and as such there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged.