CR.A/419/2001 of STATE Vs RANDHIR SINGH on 30 December 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Cr. Appeal No. 419/2001

Date of decision: 30.12. 2010

State of H.P.

Versus

…..Appellant

Randhir Singh

……Respondent

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J.

Whether approved for reporting ?[1]

For the Appellant:Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rajinider Dogra, Addl. Advocate General.

For the respondent:

Ms. Sulochna Kaundal, Legal Aid Counsel.

Surinder Singh, J.(Oral)

Vide its judgment, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1998, learned Sessions Judge reversed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court and acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 326 Indian Penal Code. State felt aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal as such challenged it in the present appeal.

1Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. Succinctly stated, facts germane to the present appeal are that on 18.3.1995 at about 11.20 a.m. PW1 Rana (injured) had gone to attend the Gurdwara of “Baba Bad Bhag Singh” to pay obeisance at Una, (H.P) . During the night, he along with others went to the water source (Bouri) for taking water, where he came in conflict with the respondent, who was present there and desisted the injured Rana to take water from that source. But when the injured tried to take the water, respondent inflicted the blow of axe on his left arm and ran away.

3. Onkar Singh a friend of injured Rana, reported the matter to the police. His statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the police which ultimately culminated into the FIR.

4. Injured was got medically examined from PW6 Dr. B.S. Rana. As per Medico legal certificate Ext. PW6/B, doctor noticed the following injuries:- “An incised wound on the medial side of back of upper 1/3[rd] of left forearm about 5cm from elbow joint. 4 cm in length. Linear in shape with smooth edge. Bleeding from the wound was present.”

5. The said injury was opined to be “grievous” in nature, caused with sharp edged weapon within two hours of the examination. He was also referred to the X-ray which was taken by PW5 Rangeela Ram Rao and the X-ray skiagram is Ext. PW5/A.

6. Respondent was apprehended from a truck nearby and the alleged recovery of the axe was effected.

7. Police prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the court for the trial of the respondent.

9. Learned Judicial Magistrate, charge sheeted the respondent after examining the witnesses of the prosecution and recording the statement of the respondent under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, convicted him and sentenced him to under imprisonment for sixmonths and to pay a fine of `500/- with default clause.

10. Respondent assailed the judgment of conviction before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge finding that the respondent could not be connected with the alleged offence, acquitted him. Hence the present appeal.

11. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General vehemently argued that the statements of the injured, doctor and the investigating Officer coupled with the fact that the respondent was immediately arrested and the alleged weapon of offence was recovered from the respondent proves the case of the prosecution and the reversal of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is unwarranted.

12. Ms. Sulochna Kaundal Advocate appearing as Legal Aid counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and referred to the statements of the prosecution witnesses in detail and concluded that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are borne out from the record and his acquittal does not call for any interference.

13. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, we have meticulously scanned the evidence on record and we concur with the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.

14. We find that the learned trial Court accepted the testimony of PW1 injured witness and PW7 Avtar Singh and others in so far as the assault by the respondent is concerned but we have also noticed that material facts which were stated by them in their examination were lost sight off.

15. The informant Onkar Singh was not examined by the prosecution and the injured PW1 Shri Rana stated in his cross-examination that he was told having inflicted injuries to him by the police, in fact he did not know the assailant personally. PW2 Darshan Singh also made the similar statement. Pertinently PW3 Rajinder Singh testified that he saw the respondent for the first time during the trial of the case, whereas PW4 Jasbir Singh came with a new story that he was queuing up with the injured PW1 to take water from the water source and the respondent had tried to hit him in between PW1 came and injury was sustained by him. In fact, this was not initially the case of the prosecution at all.

16. Further PW7 Avtar Singh stated in his examination-in-chief that when PW1 was taking water from the water source as against prosecution story that when they were still standing in the queue, an altercation took place and none of them were at that time taking water from the water source and the incident took place. No identification parade was conducted by the police in order to ascertain whether the respondent, in fact was the assailant. Further the witnesses aforesaid are in sharp contradictions with each other so far as the alleged assault and identification of the respondent is concerned.

17. The prosecution alleged that the respondent was apprehended immediately after the incident while found sitting in a truck and he also produced an axe whereas PW1 in his cross-examination admits that the police had brought an axe itself from somewhere.

18. We, on the examination of the above evidence, feel that the respondent was apprehended by the police on the basis of suspicion and during the trial, he could not be connected with the alleged offence, beyond reasonable doubt. As such, we affirm the acquittal of the respondent as the findings arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge are borne out from the record. The appeal therefore lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.

Respondent is discharged of the bail

bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of this case.

(R.B Misra),

Judge

December 30, 2010 (cm)

(Surinder Singh),Judge.