JUDGMENT Justice Sanjay Karol, J For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 23.9.2004, accused were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 29.11.2006, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P., in Sessions Case No. 6/05 RBT 64/05/05, Sessions trial No. 2/2006, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Sanjeev Kumar and others, accused stand acquitted of the charged offences. 2. It is the case of prosecution that accused Kailash Chand was having a dispute with regard to the drainage of water which flowed in the direction of his house, from the house of Sh. Dharam Singh (PW-1) (Also referred to as the injured at certain places). On 23.9.2004 at about 9.30 p.m., Sanjeev Kumar (accused No. 1), Kailash Chand (accused No. 2) and Kaushalya Devi (accused No. 3) came to the house of the injured armed with dandas and “phawra” (agricultural implement). Without any provocation, accused Kaushalya Devi and Kailash Chand gave blows with dandas to Sh. Dharam Singh and accused Sanjeev Kumar gave blow with a “phawra” on the head of the injured as a result of which he started bleeding profusely. Smt. Jamna Devi (PW-2), wife of the injured witnessed the incident. She went to the house of Sh. Madan Lal (PW-8), elder brother of the injured and narrated the incident to him. However, he asked her to go back and come the following morning. On 24.9.2004, PW-2 again went to the house of PW-8 and called him from there. Thereafter injured was taken to the Regional Hospital at Una where he was medically examined by Dr. Yogeshwar Ram Ravi (PW-6). He was referred to the Radiologist and X-ray was conducted by Radiographer Sh. Sanjiv Kumar (PW-7) and opinion thereupon was given by Radiologist Dr. Manoj Kapoor (PW-5). M.L.C. (Ext. PW 6/C) was prepared. Considering the nature of injuries, injured was taken for further treatment to the Post Graduate Institute at Chandigarh where surgery of his head was done and based on the report of the surgeon at P.G.I., final opinion was given by Dr. Yogeshwar Ram Ravi (PW-6), which revealed that injuries were grievous and dangerous to life. 3. Independently police was informed from the hospital atUna. Daily diary entry (Ext. PW 10/A) was recorded by LHC-Sandeep Kumar (PW-10). Yogeshwar Ram Ravi (PW-6), which revealed that injuries were grievous and dangerous to life. 3. Independently police was informed from the hospital atUna. Daily diary entry (Ext. PW 10/A) was recorded by LHC-Sandeep Kumar (PW-10). HC-Kamal Dev (PW-12) moved an application before the Medical officer for recording the statement of the injured and after obtaining the opinion of the Doctor, the Investigating Officer ASI-Mohinder Singh (PW-11) recorded such statement (Ext. PW 1/A) under Section 154 Cr. P.C., on the basis of which F.I.R. No. 668 of 2004 (Ext. PW 11/H), dated 24.9.2004 was registered at Police Station, Una under Sections 451, 324, 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Clothes worn by the injured i.e. shirt (Ext. P-1), pants (Ext. P-2) and parna (Ext. P-3) at the time of the occurrence of the incident were seized by the police vide seizure memo (Ext. PW 1/B). Police also collected sample of the blood soiled earth (Ext. P-7) from the spot vide seizure memo (Ext. PW 3/A). After opinion of the Doctor at P.G.I. Chandigarh was submitted to the Doctor at Una and final opinion with regard to the nature of the injury was obtained by the police on 5.10.2004, accused were arrested on 6.10.2004. During interrogation accused Kailash Chand made disclosure statement (Ext. PW 11/D) in the presence of Sh. Gurwachan Singh (PW-4) and Sh. Diwan Chand (PW-3). The said accused led the police party to a place from where weapons of offence i.e. “Phawra” (Ext. P-4) and dandas (Ext. P-5 and P-6) were recovered. They were seized by the police after photographs of the spot were taken by Sh. Shyam Gopal (PW-9). Investigation revealed complicity of the accused to the crime and, as such, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 4. Accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 451 and 506 all read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses and statements of the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded in which they pleaded innocence and false implication. 6. Appreciating the material on record, Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offences hence the present appeal. 7. We have heard Sh. R. K. Sharma, learned Senior Addl. 6. Appreciating the material on record, Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offences hence the present appeal. 7. We have heard Sh. R. K. Sharma, learned Senior Addl. Advocate General duly assisted by Sh. J. S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General on behalf of the appellant-State as also Mr. N. K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Sh. Surinder, Advocate, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents-accused. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution. Having minutely examined the record, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is well reasoned and is based on complete and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity in the same. 8. In the instant case prosecution has to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence, the fact that on the day of occurrence of the incident, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, inflicted injuries on Sh. Dharam Singh with intention and knowledge that such injuries would cause his death and thereby attempted to commit his murder. They caused grievous hurt to Sh. Dharam Singh by means of sharp instrument used as a weapon of offence which would have in all likelihood caused death and also forcibly entered into his courtyard with such intention of inflicting injuries to him. 9. First we shall deal with the injuries sustained by the injured and the medical treatment administered to him. Dr. Yogeshwar Ram Ravi (PW-6) has proved the MLC (Ext. PW 6/C) as per which the injured received the following injuries:- “1. Bruise on front of the chest above the right nipple to left nipple size 8” X 1" in size, reddish in colour and advised X-ray chest A.P.2. Abrasion on right thigh middle size 3" X 1" reddish brown in colour. 3. Abrasion on right thigh above the knee joint size 2" X 1" reddish in colour. 4. Bruise on front of the chest above the right nipple to left nipple size 8” X 1" in size, reddish in colour and advised X-ray chest A.P.2. Abrasion on right thigh middle size 3" X 1" reddish brown in colour. 3. Abrasion on right thigh above the knee joint size 2" X 1" reddish in colour. 4. Abrasion on right thigh middle part 3" X 1" reddish in colour.5.Pain left shoulder joint, no external injury advised X- ray left shoulder A.P. & lateral.6.There was a clean cut 7.5 cm long wound in sagital plane edges smooth not tages on the base wound as also bone. Cut in lineal direction. Firm clout is present. Depth of the wound was .75 cm width .75 cm. X-ray skull A-P and lateral wound.” 10. The Doctor (PW-6) opined that injuries No.1 to 5 were simple in nature and caused with blunt weapon, whereas injury No. 6 which was grievous and dangerous to life was caused with a sharp edged weapon. Significantly in his cross examination he admits that there is overwriting in the MLC (Ext. PW 6/C) at a place where injury No. 6 is mentioned. To us it appears that the Doctor inserted certain words after X-ray report was produced before him on 5.10.2004. This fact he himself admits. He also admits that MLC (Ext. PW 6/C) was actually handed over to the police on 24.9.2004. Now if this were so, then obviously police got the insertions made subsequently. His opinion that injuries were dangerous to life was based only on the opinion dated 5.10.2004. But then it be only noticed that by this time injured was not only operated on 26.9.2004 at the Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh but also stood discharged from there on 27.9.2004. Obviously he must have been discharged only after Doctors found him to be in a fit condition and as such there was no danger to his life. Hence this Doctor could not have opined that injury No. 6 was dangerous to life. We may also notice that no such opinion from P.G.I. Chandigarh was placed before him. Significantly this Doctor also admits that weapon of offence i.e. “phawra” (Ext. P-4) was never shown to him prior to recording his statement in Court. 11. In Court Dr. Hence this Doctor could not have opined that injury No. 6 was dangerous to life. We may also notice that no such opinion from P.G.I. Chandigarh was placed before him. Significantly this Doctor also admits that weapon of offence i.e. “phawra” (Ext. P-4) was never shown to him prior to recording his statement in Court. 11. In Court Dr. Manoj Kapoor (PW-5) was not in a position to opine as to whether injuries could be inflicted with the weapon of offence as the same was also not shown to him. Radiographer Sh. Sanjiv Kumar (PW-7) has simply deposed that the X-ray of the injured was conducted by him. 12. Dr. Rajesh Chhabra (PW-13) has simply deposed that as per medical record available, surgery was conducted upon the injured and injury was dangerous to life. But then he admits that surgery was actually performed by Dr. Rahul Gupta, Senior Resident Neurosurgery and not by him. He admits it to be correct that even till the time of recording of his statement in Court, his opinion with regard to the nature of injury was never sought. Then on what basis has he deposed with regard to the nature of injury is not clear. 13.Hence, in our considered view, prosecution has not been able to conclusively establish that injuries sustained by the injured, even though one of them was on the skull, were dangerous to life. 14.Be that as it may be, we now proceed to examine the question as to whether such injuries were actually inflicted by the accused or not. To establish this fact our attention is invited to the testimonies of relevant prosecution witnesses i.e. injured Sh. Dharam Singh (PW-1), his wife Smt. Jamna Devi (PW-2), his brother Sh. Madan Lal (PW-8), his neighbour Sh. Diwan Chand (PW-3) and up-pradhan of the area Sh. Gurwachan Singh (PW-4). 15.From a conjoint reading of the testimonies of all these witnesses, definitely it stands established on record that injured was working as a munshi with a wine contractor. There was a dispute between him and his wife. Prior to the incident in question, PW-2 had moved an application before the police and the panchayat to the effect that her husband i.e. PW-1 “used to create scene after taking liquor and further used to harass the family members”. Such application was moved, as is so admitted by PW-2, after things got beyond her control. Prior to the incident in question, PW-2 had moved an application before the police and the panchayat to the effect that her husband i.e. PW-1 “used to create scene after taking liquor and further used to harass the family members”. Such application was moved, as is so admitted by PW-2, after things got beyond her control. She admits that her neighbours felt harassed as a result of the scenes created by her husband under the influence of liquor. She admits that she had entered into a written compromise with her husband, which was witnessed by accused Kailash Chand. 16.Smt. Jamna Devi (PW-2) also admits that she and her husband did not have any dispute with accused Kaushalya Devi and accused Sanjeev Kumar. These admissions, according to us, have rendered the defence of the accused, as is so suggested by them while cross examining the complainant’s witnesses, to be plausible. The suggestion was put to the complainant’s witnesses by the accused that on the day of the incident, injured came home in a drunkard state and sustained injuries by accidentally falling over the floor. 17.We find that in Court, these witnesses have neither deposed truthfully nor narrated the incident in a complete manner. They have made improvements. There are exaggerations and embellishments. Their versions stand belied and contradicted by each other, rendering them not to be trustworthy and their evidence creditable. 18.Injured Sh. Dharam Singh (PW-1) in Court has deposed that on 23.9.2004, at about 9.30 p.m. when he came home, he had a verbal tiff with his wife as she had not prepared the meals in time. In the meantime, accused came and started giving beatings to him. Accused Kaushalya Devi and Kailash Chand gave blows with dandas, whereas accused Sanjeev Kumar gave him a blow with a “phawra” as a result of which he became unconscious and fell on the floor. He further states that his wife and his father rescued him from the clutches of the accused persons and made him lie on a cot inside the house. Now father has not been examined in Court. He further states that next morning his brothers Sh. Madan Lal and Sardari Lal and up-pradhan Sh. Gurwachan Singh came and took him to the hospital at Una, by which time he regained consciousness and police recorded his statement. Sh. Sardari Lal has not been examined in Court. Now father has not been examined in Court. He further states that next morning his brothers Sh. Madan Lal and Sardari Lal and up-pradhan Sh. Gurwachan Singh came and took him to the hospital at Una, by which time he regained consciousness and police recorded his statement. Sh. Sardari Lal has not been examined in Court. Now significantly in his cross examination he admits that there are 20 – 25 houses in his neighbourhood where families of his community reside. He admits that accused Kailash Chand and he are cousin brothers. He admits that there is a telephone facility in his neighbourhood. He admits that his house is accessible by road. We find that in Court, he has made several improvements and exaggerations. We find his version that he was hit with a “phawra” having iron blade not to be so recorded in his previous statement (Ext. PW 1/A) with which he was confronted. Similarly his version that he became unconscious after receiving injuries is not so recorded therein. When confronted with the very same statement, he denies having narrated it to the police that he got frightened and therefore could not come to the police station to report the matter. It appears that the witness has not deposed truthfully with regard to the fact that he became unconscious after receiving blow with the “phawra”. This we say so for the reason that PW-2 is silent on this aspect. Perhaps injured was under the influence of liquor and for this reason was not taken to the hospital by the relatives till the following morning. 19.In her examination-in-Chief, Smt. Jamna Devi (PW-2) has deposed that:- “On dated 23.9.2004 at about 8/9 p.m. when my husband had some tiff with me over the family matter that there had already been a dispute with the accused over raising level of the court-yard and thereby the rain water used to come over towards our house and as such the accused were waiting for an opportunity and on that day the accused gave beatings to my husband as accused Sanjiv gave beatings to my husband with a foura and the other accused Kailash and Kaushalya gave beatings with dandas to my husband and I along with my father-in-law and mother-in-law intervened and thereby saved my husband from the accused. I could not take my husband during night as I was all alone and he was taken to hospital in the next morning when my Jeths, elder brothers of my husband were told who came thereafter and accompanied my husband. I have seen foura Ext. P-4 and dandas Ex. P-5 and P-6 which are the same. 20.Now crucially, prosecution has not examined either of the parents of PW-1. That apart, in her cross-examination PW-2 contradicts her earlier version to the effect that she could not take her husband to the hospital during night as she was alone. She admits that adjacent to her house there are also houses of other persons. She further states that ...”It is correct that about 20 – 25 persons collected in the court-yard and it was darkness outside when the occurrence took place”; “It is correct that during darkness it could not find out who had given beatings in numbers”; “My husband had a fall out side the door in the court-yard and had fallen touching the earth towards his face”. Now this totally casts doubt about the prosecution story with regard to the identity of the accused and probabilises the defence of the accused. But most crucially she also states that “It is correct that after the occurrence immediately thereafter I went to the house of elder brothers of my husband Sardari Lal and Madan Lal where I disclosed the incident to both of them and the house of Up-pradhan is also adjacent to their houses. It is correct that both the elder brothers of my husband accompanied me to my house on that night. I cannot say that my father-in-law and the elder brothers of my husband deliberated during the night how to report the matter to the police” and “The elder brothers of my husband came over to my house on the same night, but my husband was not taken to the hospital at that time as he was taken to the hospital in the next morning. I did not request the elder brothers of my husband to lift my husband for medical assistance as I was perplexed. It is correct that none offered any help to my husband”. 21. Thus quite apparently she has made contradictory statements in Court rendering her testimony to be unreliable and untrustworthy. Assuming that she had called Sh. I did not request the elder brothers of my husband to lift my husband for medical assistance as I was perplexed. It is correct that none offered any help to my husband”. 21. Thus quite apparently she has made contradictory statements in Court rendering her testimony to be unreliable and untrustworthy. Assuming that she had called Sh. Madan Lal, then why is it that no effort was made by him to give prompt medical aid to the injured? Also why is it that matter was not immediately reported to the police? After all place of crime was accessible by road and conveniently could be taken to the hospital in a vehicle. Telephone facility was also available. Also there was no animosity between the injured and accused Kaushalya Devi and Sanjeev Kumar. Neighbours belonging to the caste of the injured were living close by. No help was also sought from them. It is not the case of prosecution that villagers were actually siding with the accused persons. 22. At this juncture, we may note that the version narrated by PW-2 stands materially contradicted by Sh. Madan Lal (PW-8) who simply states that on 23.9.2004, Smt. Jamna Devi came to his house at about 10.00 p.m. and when she reached near the gate of his house he told her that he would come in the morning. He clarifies that he thought that some altercation might have taken place between Jamna Devi and her husband. Now obviously either of these two witnesses is actually telling lies. Taking a contrary view, PW-8 admits that he did not narrate the fact to the police that Jamna Devi had approached him on the night of the incident. Strangely he states that he did not inquire about the cause of quarrel and the persons involved in such quarrel when Jamna Devi came to his house on the date of the incident. Now this is a very strange and un-natural behaviour of a brother. It is not that terms between him and the injured were not cordial. In the middle of the night Smt. Jamna Devi had walked all the way to his house and allegedly disclosed the occurrence of the incident to him, yet he did not take any action in the matter. It is not that terms between him and the injured were not cordial. In the middle of the night Smt. Jamna Devi had walked all the way to his house and allegedly disclosed the occurrence of the incident to him, yet he did not take any action in the matter. Further he states that “when the wife of Dharam Singh came to my house in the night she disclosed that a quarrel had taken place, but I send her back from the gate of my house itself”. The question which again arises for consideration is, why this witness kept silent throughout the night and took the injured to the hospital only the following morning? There is no answer to the same. It totally renders the prosecution case to be doubtful. 23.We find that prosecution has tried to corroborate the version of PW-1 and PW-2 through the testimony of their neighbour Sh. Diwan Chand (PW-3) who states that he saw the accused give beatings to the injured in the manner so narrated by PW-1. Significantly in his cross examination he admits that he is closely related to Sh. Dharam Singh (PW-1). He is an interested witness. Crucially he admits that his house is at a distance of “200 mts” from the house of injured. Now he has not explained what he was doing on the spot during the late hours of night. He states that he heard cries and then arrived at the spot. But then it would have taken him some time to cover a distance of 200 mts. on foot. Hence his version that he witnessed the occurrence of the incident does not appear to be true. This we say so also for the reason that he did not render any help to the injured. After all he was a close relative. He states that “I did not try to find out the injuries after the occurrence and to inform the police or to provide any assistance to the injured, it was to be done by his won wife”. He further states that “I did not inform the police and I did not have any talk with anybody about the occurrence, till the police recorded my statement”. Now this is a very strange reason he has assigned of not rendering help to the injured or his helpless wife. He further states that “I did not inform the police and I did not have any talk with anybody about the occurrence, till the police recorded my statement”. Now this is a very strange reason he has assigned of not rendering help to the injured or his helpless wife. After all he was a young man and was in a position to call the neighbours and inform the police or take the injured to the hospital. 24.Sh. Gurwachan Singh (PW-4) simply states that in the morning of 24.9.2004, PW-8 came to his house and disclosed that injured had sustained injuries in a quarrel. Now this witness specifically does not state that PW-8 had narrated to him the manner in which the incident took place and disclose the complicity of the accused in the alleged crime. He witnessed recovery of weapons of offence i.e. “phawra” (Ext. P-4), dandas (Ext.P-5 and P­6) but then he admits that there are no special marks of identification over the same which are generally available in the houses of agriculturists. 25.With regard to recovery of weapons of offence, we find that there is an interesting testimony of Sh. Shyam Gopal (PW-9) who took photographs at the relevant time. He has deposed that “I was instructed by the police to take the photographs of the place and thereafter the accused Kailash was brought who was handed over danda in his hand and thereafter to get him to photograph. The photograph PW-9/13 and PW-9/12 were taken when accused Kailash was instructed to put his hand on the object which was to be photographed.” 26.ASI-Mohinder Singh (PW-11) has deposed that he recorded statement (Ext. PW 11/D) of accused Kailash Chand in the presence of Up-pradhan Sh. Gurwachan Singh and Sh. Diwan Chand (PW-3). Significantly none of these witnesses have corroborated this version of his. 27.According to PW-11, he recorded statement of Diwan Chand firstly on 24.9.2004 and subsequently on 8.10.2004 which version stands contradicted by Diwan Chand, according to whom police recorded his statement only once which also was after four days of occurrence of the incident. He categorically states that thereafter neither his statement was recorded nor did he append any signatures on any papers which were taken by the police. Again the question which arises is which of these witnesses is speaking the truth? He categorically states that thereafter neither his statement was recorded nor did he append any signatures on any papers which were taken by the police. Again the question which arises is which of these witnesses is speaking the truth? 28.The Investigating Officer admits it to be true that even on 24.9.2004, he was aware that accused were involved in the case. Then why is it that he did not take any prompt action against them? It is not the case of the complainant that police was siding with the accused persons or did not conduct the investigation in a fair, impartial and prompt manner. There is no explanation forthcoming with regard to the same. Significantly he states that he recorded the statement (Mark-Y) of Smt. Jamna Devi in totality and nothing was left out. Now Jamna Devi (PW-2) states that she had told the police that there was a dispute between them and the accused with regard to levelling of the courtyard as a result of which rain water stood diverted to the house of the accused. 29.Thus it cannot be said that the witnesses has narrated the events in a complete and proper manner. The contradictions are writ large rendering their testimonies to be unreliable. Having perused the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on record, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material on record. 30.Hence, in our considered view, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to conclusively establish the fact that all the accused, in furtherance of their common intention inflicted injuries on Sh. Dharam Singh, with intention and knowledge that it would have caused his death and thereby also attempted to commit his murder or that they caused grievous hurt to him by means of a sharp instrument which in all likelihood would have caused death or forcibly entered into his courtyard with such intentions. 31.The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. 31.The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94 and State of Rajasthan versus Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta (2012) 1 SCC 602, it cannot be said that the Court below incorrectly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. Present appeal is thus dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.