Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2086 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Arun Soni

2016-09-28

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SANJAY KAROL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, State has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, in Sessions Trial No. 8/7 of 2012 dated 20.06.2013, vide which, learned trial Court acquitted the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 326, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on 11.07.2011 at around 8.45 P.M. PW-4 Karun Sharma, a student of Shiva College of Engineering alongwith his friends Pankaj, Rakib, Arush and Ravi etc. were present at Gurudwara Chowk at Bilaspur and Karun Sharma called Arun Soni, who at the relevant time was present in his shop to inquire as to why he was calling a girl who was known to Karun Sharma. Further as per prosecution, initially Arun Soni abused Karun Sharma on mobile and thereafter, he came out of his shop with a cutter in his hand and ran towards Karun Sharma and stabbed him in his abdomen, as a result of which, Karun Sharma received injury in his abdomen and blood also oozed out. Karun Sharma was immediately taken to the Police Station by his friends on motor cycle, however, at the gate they were advised to take the injured to the hospital first. Accordingly, Karun Sharma was taken to Regional Hospital, Bilaspur, for treatment on the motor cycle. He made a statement in the hospital and on the basis of the same, FIR was registered at Police Station, Sadar. Medical examination of Karun Sharma was conducted by PW-3 Dr. Ankur Dharmani. According to him, there was a stab transverse injury approximately 5 cm above umbilicus, 10 cm in length and entered into the peritoneum cavity. On palpation of the wound, there seemed tear of the left lobe of the liver and fresh blood was coming from peritoneum. Patient was referred to referred to IGMC, Shimla, for further treatment and nature of injury was stated to be grievous and dangerous to life. Investigation was carried by the police. 3. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court and as a prima facie case was found against the accused persons, accordingly, they were charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 326, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court and as a prima facie case was found against the accused persons, accordingly, they were charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 326, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Learned trial Court on the basis of material produced before it by the prosecution both ocular as well as documentary came to the conclusion that neither any recovery was effected pursuant to the statement made by the accused nor the version of the prosecution as projected before the Court was reliable and prosecution in fact had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused in furtherance of their common intention had caused grievous hurt to the complainant with a paper cutter with intent/knowledge that it would cause his death and had given provocation to him to break public peace and had also criminally intimidated him to do away with his life. Accordingly, learned trial Court acquitted the accused for commission of offences alleged against them. 5. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court was not sustainable in law. It was argued by Mr. Chauhan that learned trial Court had erred in giving undue importance to minor contradictions which appeared in the statements of prosecution witnesses without appreciating the examination-in-chief of the injured/complainant i.e. PW-4. It was further contended by Mr. Chauhan that learned trial Court had erred in not relying upon the testimonies of other key witnesses i.e. PW-1 Pankaj Thakur and PW-5 Arush Kalyan, who had categorically proved beyond reasonable doubt that it were the accused who had committed offences for which they were tried. According to Mr. Chauhan, testimony of PW-1 and PW-5 read with that of complainant proved the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and nailed the guilt of the accused, however, cogent and reliable testimony of these witnesses had been brushed aside by learned trial Court in a cursory manner. Mr. Chauhan further argued that undue importance was given to the factum of PW-2, PW-7 and PW-12 having turned hostile without appreciating that from the other material produced on record by prosecution its case stood proved against the accused. Mr. Chauhan further argued that even the statement of Dr. Mr. Chauhan further argued that undue importance was given to the factum of PW-2, PW-7 and PW-12 having turned hostile without appreciating that from the other material produced on record by prosecution its case stood proved against the accused. Mr. Chauhan further argued that even the statement of Dr. Ankur Dharmani had been totally misread and mis-appreciated by learned trial Court. On these basis, it was urged by Mr. Chauhan that judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court was not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same be set aside and the accused be convicted for commission of offences they were charged for. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Satyen Vaidya, learned Senior Advocate, who has assisted this Court as Amicus Curiae, argued that judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court cannot be faulted with because it cannot be said that on the basis of material produced on record both ocular as well as documentary by the prosecution it had proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Vaidya argued that learned trial Court in fact had taken into consideration the entire evidence produced on record by the prosecution and after a careful perusal of the same, it had rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Vaidya submitted that not only the version as was put forth by the prosecution was not reliable, there were too many inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses which shrouded the case of the prosecution with suspicion. He further argued that genesis of the case of the prosecution was that the complainant questioned the accused on mobile as to why he was time and again calling a girl known to him and the said girl i.e. PW-2 when she entered the witness box denied the factum of being acquainted with the complainant. This witness also denied that the accused used to call her. It was further submitted by Mr. This witness also denied that the accused used to call her. It was further submitted by Mr. Vaidya that another important aspect of the matter which shrouded the case of the prosecution with suspicion was that as per PW-6, complainant was referred to IGMC, Shimla and it was the case of the prosecution that from Bilaspur the complainant was in fact taken to IGMC, Shimla, however, the prosecution did not place on record any evidence with regard to the treatment undergone by the complainant at IGMC, Shimla, which tantamount to concealing material evidence from the Court. On these basis, it was submitted by Mr. Satyen Vaidya, learned Amicus Curiae, that keeping in view the fact that the respondents were having benefit of acquittal in their favour and the material produced on record by the prosecution did not prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the judgment passed by learned trial Court should not be interfered with. 7. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General and learned Amicus Curiae and have also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgment passed by learned trial Court. 8. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 17 witnesses and defence examined one witness. 9. Hereinafter we will refer to the testimony of material prosecution witnesses. 10. Pankaj Thakur entered the witness box as PW-1 and stated that he was a music teacher in New Delhi and the complainant was also practicing music with him in Main Market Bilaspur. As per this witness, in the evening of 11.07.2011 he alongwith Karun had gone to Gurudwara Chowk and Karun was talking on his mobile phone and was little ahead from where he was standing. This witness further deposed that accused Ajay Soni was talking with Karun from his shop and thereafter accused Ajay Soni came out of his shop and caught hold of Karun from his throat and hurled a blow with something in his stomach as a result of which Karun sustained injury in his stomach and fell down. This witness further deposed that Karun was taken to Police Station at Bilaspur and subsequently he was taken to hospital at Bilaspur, from where he was referred to IGMC, Shimla for treatment. This witness further deposed that Karun was taken to Police Station at Bilaspur and subsequently he was taken to hospital at Bilaspur, from where he was referred to IGMC, Shimla for treatment. In his cross-examination, he denied that on 11.07.2011 at 4.00 P.M. he, Karun and Ravi were together near Radha Rani parking in Main Market Bilaspur where they met Rishi and they told Rishi that in the evening they were to have a quarrel with Ajay Soni and asked Rishi not to come there. He also denied that Karun had shown ‘Khukhari’ to Rishi which was hidden by him in his loin. He also denied that on 11.07.2011 at around 8.30 P.M. he alongwith Karun, Rakib, Arush, Ravi and Manoj had gathered at Gurudwara Chowk. He stated that he reached Gurudwara Chowk alongwith Karun at about 8.00 P.M. and both of them had come on a motor cycle. He further stated that he knew Ravi and Rakib but he was not aware that Rakib, Ravi, Arush and Manoj were already there or not. He admitted it to be correct that when they reached at Gurudwara Chowk about 30-40 persons were there and one bullock was in the middle of road. This witness further deposed that Karun was at a distance of 20 meters away from him and he was talking on his mobile and then he reached near the place where bullock was on the road. He further deposed that he was the first to reach the spot after Karun was injured and had fallen down and Manoj was also present there. He further stated in his cross-examination that they did not inform the police about the quarrel and he was not aware as to who had informed the police, however one Ambulance was there for taking away drunkard person lying at the spot. He further stated that he had not seen any blood on the spot though he saw blood on the shirt of Karun. 11. Neena Panwar entered the witness as PW-2 and she stated that she was doing M. Sc. From Shoolini University, Solan. She further stated that she was not having SIM bearing No. 98164-40054. This witness further deposed that she was neither acquainted with Ajay Soni nor she knew complainant Karun. She was declared as a hostile witness and was subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution. From Shoolini University, Solan. She further stated that she was not having SIM bearing No. 98164-40054. This witness further deposed that she was neither acquainted with Ajay Soni nor she knew complainant Karun. She was declared as a hostile witness and was subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution. In her cross-examination, she denied that SIM bearing No. 98164-40054 was given to her by Ajay Soni. She denied that she was either acquainted with Karun Kumar Sharma or she used to talk with him on mobile. She was confronted with her statement recorded Mark-N and she stated that portion Mark-A to A of the said statement was not given by her to the police. In her cross-examination by the defence, she admitted it to be correct that she never disclosed to Karun that Ajay Soni used to tease her and she did not ask Karun to report the matter to police about the alleged teasing. She further stated that she never met Karun during her stay at Bilaspur. 12. Dr. Ankur Dharmani entered the witness box as PW-3 and he stated that in the year 2011 he was posted at R.H. Bilaspur as Medical Officer and on 11.07.2011 at around 9.05 P.M. patient Karun Sharma was brought by his friends with alleged history of injury in the abdomen with sharp weapon. This witness further stated that patient was given primary treatment and referred to IGMC, Shimla, after consultation with and primary treatment by Surgeon. He also stated that kind of the weapon used was sharp and at the time of examination, nature of the injury seemed to be grievous and dangerous to life. In his cross-examination, this witness admitted that he was not shown treatment record of this patient which was given to him at IGMC, Shimla. He further stated that in case record was shown to him, he would be in a position to give final opinion. He admitted it to be correct that he had given his final opinion just on clinical examination of the patient by the Surgeon and him. He admitted it to be correct that if the weapon used did not rupture the peritoneum and vital part then the injury cannot be stated to be dangerous to life. He also admitted it be correct that as per report Ext. PW3/B, no blood was found on weapon i.e. on paper cutter. He admitted it to be correct that if the weapon used did not rupture the peritoneum and vital part then the injury cannot be stated to be dangerous to life. He also admitted it be correct that as per report Ext. PW3/B, no blood was found on weapon i.e. on paper cutter. He further admitted it to be correct that paper cutter was neither shown to him at the time of examination of the patient nor on the day he deposed in the Court. He further stated that he could not comment without seeing paper cutter about the injury whether it was caused with a paper cutter. He further stated that the possibility of sustaining injury as mentioned in MLC Ext. PW3/D cannot be ruled out from a sharp edged weapon if concealed in the loin area by a person. He admitted the suggestion to be correct that such injury could be caused by a fall on sharp edged weapon lying on the floor. 13. Complainant Karun Sharma entered the witness box as PW-4 and he stated that on 11.07.2011 at around 8.30 P.M. he came to Gurudwara Chowk alongwith Pankaj, Rakib, Arush and Ravi and he was talking to accused Ajay on his mobile who abused him. He further stated that Ajay Soni had talked to his brother Arun Soni and pursuant thereon, Arun came out of his shop, caught hold of him and attacked him with a paper cutter in his abdomen as a result of which, he fell down and sustained injury and there was lot of bleeding. This witness further deposed that Manoj, who was standing nearby, took him to Police Station, Sadar, on his motor cycle and police directed him to go to the hospital first and said that they would assist him in the hospital. He further stated that he came to the hospital and recorded his statement. He also stated that stitches were put on injury in the hospital but the bleeding did not stop and he was referred to IGMC, Shimla, where he remained admitted for about a week and Surgery was also performed upon him. He also stated that he was thereafter associated by the police and one cutter was produced by accused Arun Soni and he identified the said cutter. He also stated that he was thereafter associated by the police and one cutter was produced by accused Arun Soni and he identified the said cutter. In his cross-examination, he admitted it to be correct that he visited the shop of the accused on 24.09.2009 for purchasing a mobile phone. Thereafter, he stated that he was sent by Sanket to purchase mobile phone set. He further admitted it to be correct that bill Ext. D-5 was taken by him at the time of purchase of mobile and he did not make any payment of that mobile set. He admitted to be correct that blue tooth was also purchased on that day for an amount of Rs.2000/- He further stated that he did not make payment of Rs.2000/-. He further stated that he talked with accused Ajay on that day in connection with his girl friend Neena. He further stated that he did not propose Neena for marriage and that they used to meet each other frequently. He further stated that he was told by Neena that accused Ajay used to tease her and once accused Ajay had also called him to his shop on this issue, however, he did not go. He further stated that Neena told him about her being teased by accused Ajay about one month before the incident took place. He further stated that he met Rishi on 11.07.2011 at around 4.00 P.M. near Radha Rani Park. He further stated that Pankaj and Ravi were also with him. He denied that that they had stopped Rishi on the spot. He denied that they told Rishi that they were going to attack both the accused in the evening. He denied that he had shown ‘Khukhari’ to Rishi that day. He denied that he and his friends had planned to attack accused in the evening. According to him, Rakib, Arush, Ravi and Manoj were standing at the road to see the drunkard who had fallen down and who was taken away by the police. He further stated that he talked to Ajay after the police had left the spot and he had disclosed to the police about his talk with Ajay on mobile. As per him, he hardly talked for 30 seconds. He denied that the dispute arose only because of his talk with Ajay. He further stated that he talked to Ajay after the police had left the spot and he had disclosed to the police about his talk with Ajay on mobile. As per him, he hardly talked for 30 seconds. He denied that the dispute arose only because of his talk with Ajay. He denied that he made phone call to accused with the intention to make them come out of their shop. He also admitted in his cross-examination that Neena had not made any complaint to the police and he also admitted it to be correct that there were 20 persons on the spot. 14. PW-3 Dr. Ankur Dharmani was re-examined on 17.12.2012 and on that date he was shown paper cutter Ext. P-1 and he stated that the injuries mentioned in MLC Ext. PW3/D were possible by Ext. P-1. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that he did not mention the width of the wounds. He further admitted it to be correct that 2 cms wide wound cannot be caused by Ext. P-1. He further admitted it to be correct that final opinion could have been given by him about the injury after he peruses the treatment record of IGMC, Shimla, regarding use of Ext. P-1. 15. Arush Kalyan entered the witness box as PW-5 and he stated that he was employed as Home Guard and on 11.07.2011 at around 8.30 P.M. he alongwith his friend Rakib were standing near Gurudwara and Manoj and Karun were standing at the other side and were talking with each other and while Karun was talking on his mobile with someone, Arun came out of his shop and he caught hold of Karun and attacked him with paper cutter Ext. P-1. He further stated that Karun fell down on the road and started bleeding. He further stated that Karun was taken to the Police Station by Manoj on his motor cycle and he also went to the Police Station. In his cross-examination, he stated that Rakib was his friend and he was not on speaking terms with Ravi, Pankaj, Manoj and Karun. He denied that on the fateful day he was called by Karun on the spot. He admitted that there were 20-25 persons available at the spot. He also stated that Karun and Manoj were standing at a distance of 5-7 feet away from him and Rakib. He denied that on the fateful day he was called by Karun on the spot. He admitted that there were 20-25 persons available at the spot. He also stated that Karun and Manoj were standing at a distance of 5-7 feet away from him and Rakib. He admitted it to be correct that Karun did not talk to Arun Soni on mobile in his presence. He was confronted with his statement recorded by the police Mark- DA, which was in contradiction to what he deposed in the Court. He denied the suggestion that on the fateful day Karun had gone inside the shop of the accused and banged glass kept on counter with fist blow and broke the same. He also denied that Karun caught hold of accused Arun Soni from his throat and dragged him outside his shop and when accused Arun Soni tried to wriggle out from the clutches of Karun, complainant fell down and received injury in his loin. 16. Varun Sharma entered the witness box as PW-6 and he deposed that he was Production Officer in Baddi and on 11.07.2011 at around 9.15 P.M. he was called on his mobile by Arush informing him that Arun Soni had attacked his brother Karun Sharma with cutter and Karun was admitted in the hospital. He further stated that he went to the hospital alongwith his family members and found injury on the abdomen of Karun. This witness further stated that Karun was referred to IGMC, Shimla, for further treatment and he was brought to the hospital by his father and friends. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was not acquainted with Arush Kalyan. He further deposed that Rakib went to Shimla alongwith Karun and other persons. 17. Ravi Chand entered the witness box as PW-7 and he deposed that he runs a shop in Gandhi market and on 11.07.2011 at around 8.30 P.M. while he was going to his home after closing his shop and had reached near Gurudwara Chowk, he met Manoj Kumar. He further stated that Rakib was also standing nearby and while he was taking with Manoj, Karun was talking on his mobile with someone. He further stated that he did not see anyone attacking Karun. He further stated that Karun had sustained injury in his abdomen and Arun Soni was on the spot and he had also seen him going to his shop. He further stated that he did not see anyone attacking Karun. He further stated that Karun had sustained injury in his abdomen and Arun Soni was on the spot and he had also seen him going to his shop. He further stated that Karun disclosed to him that he was attacked by Arun Soni with cutter and thereafter, they went to Police Station from where they went to hospital. He did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared as a hostile witness and he was subjected to cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination, he denied that Karun was talking on mobile with Ajay and thereafter Ajay came out of his shop and that Ajay Soni had threatened Karun and went inside the shop. He denied that thereafter Arun Soni came out of his shop and attacked Karun with paper cutter. However, he admitted it to be correct that Karun fell down and was lifted by Manoj. But he denied that when Arun Soni produced cutter Ext. P-1 on 01.08.2011 Karun was present at that time in the Police Post. In his cross-examination by the defence, he admitted that his shop was at a distance of 200 meters from Gurudwara Chowk and that Karun was a good friend of his. He also admitted it to be correct that on 11.07.2011 at around 4.00 P.M. he alongwith Pankaj and Karun were standing at Radha Rani Park in Main Market, Bilaspur, and Karun and Rishi were talking to each other. However, he further stated that he is not aware as to what had transpired between them. In his cross-examination, he stated that Pankaj and Manoj alongwith him were present in the hospital, whereas Arush and Rakib were not present. 18. HC Parkash Chand entered the witness box as PW-8 and he stated that on 11.07.2011 telephonic information was given to him from Police Station that a quarrel had taken place at Gurudwara Chowk and injured was taken to the hospital and thereafter, he went to the hospital. He further stated that by that time ASI Narain Singh had already reached there and was conducting the proceedings. This witness further deposed that on 01.08.2011 accused Arun Soni produced one paper cutter yellow in colour which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext. He further stated that by that time ASI Narain Singh had already reached there and was conducting the proceedings. This witness further deposed that on 01.08.2011 accused Arun Soni produced one paper cutter yellow in colour which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext. PW4/B. He also stated that Ext.P-1 was identified by Karun and witness Ravi and both of them signed the recovery memo in his presence. He also stated that Ajay had given a disclosure statement while in police custody in the presence of Sanjeev Kumar and he led the police party and got the spot demarcated pursuant to the said disclosure statement. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that initially he received information from Police Station at about 8.35 P.M. and reached Gurudwara Chowk within five minutes. There he came to know from the people at the spot that a drunkard had already been taken to the hospital in Ambulance. He further stated that at 8.50 P.M. he again received information from the police that a quarrel had taken place at the spot and injured had been taken to the hospital. He deposed that no complaint was made to him for investigation relating to the alleged occurrence. He further stated that he did not see any blood stains on the Gurudwara Chowk. He also stated that shop of Ajay Soni was situated at a distance of 15-18 feet from the place of occurrence. He also stated that he did not insist upon Investigating Officer to associate independent witnesses at the time of recovery of cutter Ext. P-1. He denied the suggestion that Karun was not present in the Police Post. He denied the suggestion that Ajay Soni had not made any disclosure statement. 19. PW-9 Constable Surinder Pal, PW-10 Constable Rakesh Kumar, PW-11 Dy. S.P. Partap Singh and PW-13 HHC Ganesh Singh are formal witnesses. 20. Manoj Kumar entered the witness box as PW-12 and he stated that he was running a shop at Gandhi market at Bilaspur and in July, 2010, he was going from his shop to bazaar and when he reached Gurudwara Chowk, he stopped when he saw Ravi Chandel and others. He further stated that he was talking with Ravi when suddenly Karun fell down at the spot where one bullock was on the road. He further stated that he was talking with Ravi when suddenly Karun fell down at the spot where one bullock was on the road. He further stated that Karun stood up and said that he wanted to go to the hospital as he had been given beating by Arun Soni with cutter. He further stated that he did no see Arun Soni attacking Karun with cutter. This witness was declared as a hostile witness as he had resiled from his earlier statement. He was permitted to be cross-examined by learned Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that on the fateful day when he reached Gurudwara Chowk, he met Karun, Ravi and Pankaj Chandel. He also stated that Arush was also present there. He also admitted it to be correct that Karun was speaking on his mobile with some one. He admitted it to be correct that Ajay Soni had come out of his shop and talked with Karun. He denied that thereafter Ajay Soni went inside his shop and then Arun Soni came with cutter and attacked Karun. He admitted that Karun received injury on his stomach and thereafter, he was taken to Police Station on motor cycle. In his cross-examination by the defence, he admitted it to be correct that Karun had disclosed to him that he had some dispute with Ajay Soni with regard to girl. This witness further stated that the said girl used to speak to both Karun and Ajay Soni. He further stated that Karun was talking loudly on his mobile. He admitted it to be correct that foot of the complainant got entangled with the bullock and he fell down and thereafter, he stood up and asked him to take him to the hospital. 21. HC Dev Raj entered the witness box as PW-14 and he stated that at the relevant time he was posted as MHC in Police Station Sadar. He deposed with regard to the depositing of the case property with him. He also stated that on 27.09.2011 he had sent the case property to RFSL, Gutkar through HHC Ganesh Singh. This witness also deposed that on 11.07.2011 at around 8.30 P.M. some unknown person informed the police that one person was lying unconscious at Gurudwara Chowk, on which rapat Ext. PW14/C was entered. He also stated that on 27.09.2011 he had sent the case property to RFSL, Gutkar through HHC Ganesh Singh. This witness also deposed that on 11.07.2011 at around 8.30 P.M. some unknown person informed the police that one person was lying unconscious at Gurudwara Chowk, on which rapat Ext. PW14/C was entered. He further deposed that on the same day at around 8.45 P.M. some unknown person informed the police that a quarrel had taken place at Gurudwara and on this rapat Ext. PW14/D was entered. He further deposed that at around 8.55 P.M. Karun was brought to Police Station, Sadar and he was outside. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that Karun did not meet him in the Police Station and he admitted it to be correct that he was not brought inside the Police Station nor he lodged any rapat in the Police Station. He also admitted it to be correct that Karun and his friends did not disclose the cause of quarrel and injury. 22. ASI Narain Singh entered the witness box as PW-15 and he stated that on 11.07.2011 he was posted as ASI/SHO, Police Station Sadar, Bilaspur, and at around 8.45 P.M. information was received in the Police Station that quarrel had taken place at Gurudwara Chowk. This witness further stated that at around 8.55 P.M. complainant was brought to the gate of Police Station, Sadar, Bilaspur, by his friends on motor cycle and he was having injury on his stomach and blood was oozing out. This witness further stated that he immediately referred him alongwith his friends to R.H. Bilaspur, for first aid. He further stated that thereafter he alongwith Constable Ram Pal also proceeded to the hospital. This witness also stated that he moved an application Ext.PW3/C for medical examination of the complainant and obtained medical opinion of the Medical Officer. He also stated that he recorded the statement of Karun Sharma. He further deposed that as a case was made out under Section 326 and 307 I.P.C., he sent a Rukka through Constable Ram Pal on the basis of which, FIR was lodged. He also stated that thereafter he proceeded to the spot of the incident. He further stated that no witness was found at the spot and no evidence was found. He also stated that thereafter he proceeded to the spot of the incident. He further stated that no witness was found at the spot and no evidence was found. In his cross-examination, this witness deposed that first information about the occurrence was received in the Police Station at around 8.45 P.M. and at that relevant time he was present in the Police Station. He further deposed that he did not visit the spot immediately but visited the same after going to the hospital. He further stated that he did not inquire about the occurrence from HC Parkash Chand. He admitted it to be correct that when he visited the spot he did not find any blood at the spot. He further admitted that Karun did not disclose to him about the cause of quarrel and the weapon with which the alleged injury was caused. He further stated that he met the complainant at the Police Station for about two minutes. He admitted it to be correct that on the day of the occurrence he did not carry out any search in the shop as well as house of the accused. He further stated that the complainant was referred in his presence to IGMC, Shimla and he did not collect any treatment, case summary or record from IGMC, Shimla. 23. ASI Ajeet Singh entered the witness box as PW-16 and he stated that he was posted as Investigating Officer in Police Station Sadar, Bilaspur. On 19.07.2011 accused Arun Soni produced one paper cutter before him. He further stated that paper cutter was got identified by him from the complainant. As per him, he did not identify the said cutter. In his cross-examination, he stated that he went alongwith cutter to the house of the complainant. He further stated that he had prepared recovery memo qua taking into possession of the cutter but said recovery memo was not in the case file. He further stated that the complainant did not disclose to him about the colour and size of the weapon of offence used, however, he stated that the weapon used was of bigger size. 24. SI Hoshiar Singh entered the witness box as PW-17. He stated that in the year 2011 he was Incharge Police Post City Bilaspur and on 11.07.2011 vide rapat Ext. 24. SI Hoshiar Singh entered the witness box as PW-17. He stated that in the year 2011 he was Incharge Police Post City Bilaspur and on 11.07.2011 vide rapat Ext. PW17/A Dy.S.P. Head Quarter informed him that a quarrel had taken place at Gurudwara Chowk and thereafter, he proceeded to the spot. He further stated that SI Paras Ram and other police officials of Police Station, Sadar, were already there. This witness further stated that the accused was not found on the spot and no witness was present. He stated that he raided the house of the accused during night but they were not found. He also stated that he prepared spot map Ext. PW17/B at the instance of Manoj Kumar, Arush and Varun. He further stated that he recorded their statements also. This witness further deposed that on 01.08.2011 accused Arun Soni produced one cutter before him in the presence of witnesses Ravi Kumar and Parkash Chand. He further stated that the complainant was also present. He prepared Khaka Ext. PW17/C and got it signed from the witnesses, accused and complainant. He further stated that before this also, accused Arun Soni had produced one cutter before ASI Ajeet Kumar which was not identified by the complainant. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that patrolling of the bazaar was done during night time. Gurudwara Chowk/Roura Sector was divided in two beats for the purpose of patrolling. This witness further stated that he cannot say who was deputed on that night for patrolling at Gurudwara Chowk. He admitted it to be correct that none of the official of patrolling party informed him about the incident. He further stated that he reached at the spot at 10.30 P.M. He further stated that he had not called Varun, Manoj and Ayush on that night and they came on the spot on the next morning at 9.30 A.M. He further stated that he did not find any blood or blood stains at the spot. He further stated that Fard regarding showing cutter by ASI Ajeet Singh to complainant was not on the case file. He also stated that when on the next day, he visited the spot, shops were open and he inquired from the shop of Anshul Food and Varinder Singh in the morning about the occurrence but they stated that the occurrence was not seen by them. He also stated that when on the next day, he visited the spot, shops were open and he inquired from the shop of Anshul Food and Varinder Singh in the morning about the occurrence but they stated that the occurrence was not seen by them. He also stated that none of the shopkeepers disclosed to him about the incident. He also stated that he had not mentioned the distance of the shop of Arun Soni in the site plan from Point-A, however, as per him, distance was approximately 15 meters. He also stated that during the course of investigation he had not taken the mobile of Karun through which he talked to Neena. He further stated that mobile of Karun was badly damaged by his father. 25. Defence has examined Rishi Sharma as DW-1 and this witness deposed that he runs a mobile shop at Gurudwara at Bilaspur, knew Karun Sharma, Pankaj and Ravi and on 11.07.2011, at around 4.00 P.M., he met Ravi, Pankaj and Karun at Radha Rani Parking where they stopped him and told him that why he used to be with the company of accused. This witness further deposed that on this he told Karun that they were his friends. Complainant told him that he should not be with them in the evening. This witness further stated that when he objected to this, Karun put his hand on his neck and also showed him ‘Khukhari’ which was hidden by him under his shirt in the loins. He stated that ‘Khukhari’ was without cover. This witness further stated that in the evening he went to the shop of the accused. Gaurav alongwith one customer was also in the shop. He further stated that he was talking with Arun Soni and Ajay Soni was showing mobile to the customers and his friend purchased one battery from the shop. As per him, he heard loud voice from outside and went outside the shop. He found Karun shouting loudly on his mobile and was abusing someone. He further stated that Karun thereafter got entangled with bullock while he was talking on his mobile fell down unmindful of the presence of bullock on the spot. He further stated that he did not see any quarrel having taken place between Karun and accused persons. 26. He found Karun shouting loudly on his mobile and was abusing someone. He further stated that Karun thereafter got entangled with bullock while he was talking on his mobile fell down unmindful of the presence of bullock on the spot. He further stated that he did not see any quarrel having taken place between Karun and accused persons. 26. These are the material witnesses on whose testimonies prosecution had relied upon to prove its case against the accused. 27. Before proceedings further, it is relevant to take note of the fact that as per the prosecution, genesis of the dispute was the factum of accused calling Neena who was known to the complainant and as per prosecution, quarrel took place when Karun asked the accused as to why they were calling Neena who in turn came out of the shop and stabbed the complainant. Thus, the motive behind stabbing of the complainant by the accused was the quarrel which took place on account of the complainant confronting the accused as to why they were unnecessarily calling Neena. 28. Neena Panwar denied having any acquaintance with the complainant or the accused. This witness was subjected to cross-examination by the defence and in the said cross-examination, she denied that SIM bearing No. 98164-40054 had been taken by her from Ajay Soni or that she was either acquainted with the complainant and used to talk with him on mobile. In her cross-examination by the defence, this witness admitted it to be correct that she had never disclosed to Karun that Ajay Soni used to tease her. 29. Therefore, according to us, keeping in view the fact that PW-2 Neena Panwar has not supported the case of prosecution, the genesis of the case of the prosecution and the reason and motive as to why the alleged incident took place becomes highly doubtful. 30. Now comes the issue of injury having been suffered by the complainant. According to the prosecution, the injury which was suffered by the complainant was grievous injury and was dangerous to life. The case so putforth by the prosecution was based on the testimony of PW-3 Dr. Ankur Dharmani, who had examined the complainant on 11.07.2011 at around 9.05 P.M. at R.H. Bilaspur. MLC of the complainant is on record as Ext. PW3/D. A perusal of the same demonstrates that PW-3 had referred the complainant to IGMC, Shimla. The case so putforth by the prosecution was based on the testimony of PW-3 Dr. Ankur Dharmani, who had examined the complainant on 11.07.2011 at around 9.05 P.M. at R.H. Bilaspur. MLC of the complainant is on record as Ext. PW3/D. A perusal of the same demonstrates that PW-3 had referred the complainant to IGMC, Shimla. It is a matter of record that no evidence has been produced on record by the prosecution as to whether or not the complainant in fact was admitted in IGMC, Shimla, and what was the treatment he underwent at IGMC, Shimla, though it had come in the prosecution evidence that the complainant after being referred to IGMC, Shimla, remained admitted there. However, what was the nature of the injury with which he was admitted at IGMC, Shimla and what was the treatment etc. given to him, has not come on record. PW-3 in his cross-examination admitted that the possibility of injury which was found on the body of the complainant being sustained if a sharp edged weapon is concealed in the loin area by a person could not be ruled out. He also admitted it to be correct that the said injury can be caused by a fall on sharp edged weapon lying on the floor. This witness was recalled for examination when he was shown weapon of offence i.e. paper cutter Ext. P-1. In his cross-examination, this witness admitted it to be correct that 2 cms wide wound could not be caused by Ext.P-1 and he also admitted it to be correct that final opinion could have been given by him about the injury after going through the treatment record of IGMC, Shimla, regarding use of Ext. P-1. Thus, it is apparent from the testimony of PW-3 that he clarified that he could not say without going through the treatment record of the complainant pertaining to IGMC, Shimla, as to whether the injury suffered by the complainant was on account of paper cutter Ext. P-1 or not. Besides this, he also admitted it to be correct that 2 cms. wide wound could not be caused by Ext. P-1. He also admitted the suggestion that the injury suffered by the complainant could have been suffered if a weapon was concealed by a person in his loin. P-1 or not. Besides this, he also admitted it to be correct that 2 cms. wide wound could not be caused by Ext. P-1. He also admitted the suggestion that the injury suffered by the complainant could have been suffered if a weapon was concealed by a person in his loin. When we take the testimony of PW-3 in totality, the only conclusion which can be drawn is this that neither the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the injury on the body of the complainant was caused by the use of paper cutter Ext. P-1 nor there was any material on record to substantiate as to what was the nature of the said injury because PW-3 stated that he could have give his final opinion regarding the use of paper cutter only after going through the treatment record of IGMC, Shimla, which record was never placed before the Court. 31. This brings us to the most important aspect of the matter as to whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the fateful day accused Arun Soni had in fact stabbed the complainant with paper knife Ext. P-1 or not. 32. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to take note of the fact that it has unambiguously come in the testimony of PW-15 ASI Narain Singh and PW-7 SI Hoshiar Singh, who had visited the spot, that no blood was found at the spot, though it is the case of the prosecution that after receiving the injury the complainant was bleeding profusely. It has also come in the testimony of PW-15 ASI Narain Singh that complainant had not disclosed to him the cause of quarrel and the weapon with which the alleged injury was caused. This witness has also admitted it to be correct that he had not collected any treatment, case summary on record from IGMC, Shimla, pertaining to the complainant. 33. Complainant in his testimony stated that on the fateful day at around 8.30 P.M. he had come to Gurudwara Chowk alongwith Pankaj, Rakib, Arush and Ravi, were there. This witness has also admitted it to be correct that he had not collected any treatment, case summary on record from IGMC, Shimla, pertaining to the complainant. 33. Complainant in his testimony stated that on the fateful day at around 8.30 P.M. he had come to Gurudwara Chowk alongwith Pankaj, Rakib, Arush and Ravi, were there. Pankaj Thakur entered the witness box as PW-1 and he stated that on 11.07.2011 he had gone to Gurudwara Chowk with Karun, complainant and while Karun was talking on his mobile and had gone little ahead and he was standing at a short distance away from him, accused who were talking from their shop with Karun, came out and hurled a blow with something in his stomach. Arush Kalyan, who entered the witness box as PW-5, stated that on the fateful day at 8.30 P.M. he alongwith his friend Rakib were standing near Gurudwara and Manoj and Karun were standing at the other side and were talking with each other and Karun was talking on his mobile with someone and accused Arun came outside from his shop and he caught hold of Karun and attacked him with paper cutter. Ravi Chandel entered the witness box as PW-7 and according to him, on 11.07.2011 at around 8.30 P.M. while he was going to his house after closing his shop and when reached near Gurudwara Chowk, he met Manoj Kumar. He further stated that Rakib was also standing nearby. PW-7 was talking with Manoj and though, he did not see anyone attacking Karun, however Karun had sustained injury in his stomach. He further stated that Arun Soni was on the spot and Karun disclosed to him that he was attacked by Arun Soni with cutter. Rakib has not been examined by the prosecution. Manoj Kumar entered the witness box as PW-12 and he stated that on the fateful day he was going from his shop to bazaar and when he reached near Gurudwara Chowk, he stopped on seeing Ravi Chandel and others. As per him, Rakib, Karun and 2-3 others were present and while he was talking with Ravi, suddenly Karun fell down at the spot where one bullock was on the road. He further stated that Karun stood up and said that he wanted to go to the hospital and further stated that he was given beatings by Arun soni with cutter. He further stated that Karun stood up and said that he wanted to go to the hospital and further stated that he was given beatings by Arun soni with cutter. Incidentally, Ravi Candel and Manoj Kumar were declared as hostile witnesses. 34. It is a matter of record that all the above mentioned persons were acquainted with each other and were friends. 35. As per PW-1 Pankaj Thakur, he alongwith Karun had gone to Gurudwara Chowk and Karun was hurled a blow with something in his stomach by Ajay Soni. 36. As per PW-4 Karun Sharma, Arun came out of his shop and caught hold of him and attacked him with paper cutter. 37. Further, as per PW-5 Arush Kalyan, Manoj and Karun were standing in a side and were talking with each other, when accused Arun came out of his shop, he caught hold of Karun and attacked him with paper cutter. 38. PW-4 has not stated that he was talking with Manoj. As per PW-1, Karun was with him and this witness also not stated that when the complainant was attacked he was talking with Manoj. 39. Whereas, PW-1 Pankaj stated that after the complainant was stabbed by the accused, he picked him up, the version of the complainant is to the effect that it was Manoj who picked him up. Besides this, whereas the factum of meeting Rishi during day time has been admitted by the complainant, the same has been denied by Pankaj. 40. Now, when we come to the testimony of PW-7 Ravi Chandel, according to him, Manoj Kumar was talking with him. He further stated that he did not see anyone attacking Karun and it was Karun who disclosed to him that he was attacked by Arun Soni. PW-12 Manoj Kumar who otherwise also has not supported the case of the prosecution, has introduced a total new story about Karun falling down at the spot where one bullock was on the road. He also stated that he did not see Arun Soni attacking Karun with cutter. 41. In our considered view, these are material inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, which shroud the case of the prosecution with suspicion. Not only this, it also creates doubt over the trustworthiness and truthfulness of the said witnesses, who otherwise are also interested witnesses being close friends of the complainant. 42. 41. In our considered view, these are material inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, which shroud the case of the prosecution with suspicion. Not only this, it also creates doubt over the trustworthiness and truthfulness of the said witnesses, who otherwise are also interested witnesses being close friends of the complainant. 42. These were the material witnesses on whose testimony the entire case of the prosecution hinged. However, as we have already mentioned above besides there being inconsistencies and contradictions in their statements, their testimonies neither inspire any confidence nor they seem to be truthful. Therefore, the only conclusion which can be drawn from the statements of the said witnesses is that it cannot be said that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant was stabbed with a paper cutter by accused Arun Soni. 43. One more aspect of the matter is the mode and manner of the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence Ext. P-1. PW-17 SI Hoshiar Singh stated that on 01.8.2011 accused produced one cutter before him in the presence of witnesses Ravi and Parkash Chand and complainant was also present there. This witness stated that he prepared Khaka Ext. PW17/C which was signed by the witnesses, accused as well as complainant. While as per PW-17 when the paper cutter was produced before him by accused Arun Soni, the same was done in the presence of complainant, however, PW-7 Ravi Chandel (who as per PW-17 was one of the witnesses in whose presence the cutter was given to him by the accused) stated in his testimony that the complainant was not present there at the relevant time. In his crossexamination, he again reiterated this fact that when the cutter was produced by accused Arun Soni, Karun was not present in the Police Post. Incidentally, the other witness to the said recovery is HC Parkash Cahnd i.e. a police official. In his cross-examination, PW-8 HC Parkash Chand stated that he did not insist upon the Investigating Officer to associate any independent witness at the time of recovery of cutter Ext. P-1. Be that as it may, as we have already taken note of the fact that PW-3 Dr. Ankur Dharmani on his re-examination on 17.12.2012 had stated that 2 cms wide wound (on the body of the complainant) could not be caused by Ext. P-1. P-1. Be that as it may, as we have already taken note of the fact that PW-3 Dr. Ankur Dharmani on his re-examination on 17.12.2012 had stated that 2 cms wide wound (on the body of the complainant) could not be caused by Ext. P-1. Further, in our considered view, the evidence produced on record by prosecution as to how Ext.P-1 was recovered does not inspire confidence at all. Whereas, as per PW-17, paper cutter was handed over to him by the accused in the presence of complainant. PW-7 has denied the presence of complainant in the Police Post at that relevant time. Even otherwise witness to the said recovery, PW-8 in his cross-examination has admitted that he did not ask the Investigating Officer to associate any independent witness at the time of the said recovery of the weapon of offence. 44. Therefore, in our considered view, it is evident from the material which has been placed on record by the prosecution that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused in fact had stabbed the complainant with a paper cutter in the evening of 11.07.2011 and had caused him grievous injury which was dangerous to life. 45. We have carefully gone through the judgment passed by learned trial Court and perusal of the same reveals that all these aspects of the matter has been examined and after carefully examining the entire material produced by the prosecution, learned trial Court has returned the findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. According to us also, from the material on record produced by the prosecution both ocular as well as documentary, it has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 46. It is settled law that in exceptional circumstances, the Appellate Court for compelling reasons can reverse a judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court if the findings so recorded by the Court are perverse. However, it is also settled law that an acquittal by Court below bolsters presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and, therefore, judgment of acquittal should be reversed only in exceptional circumstances. However, it is also settled law that an acquittal by Court below bolsters presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and, therefore, judgment of acquittal should be reversed only in exceptional circumstances. We do not find that there is either any exceptional circumstance in the present case or the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse so as to compel us to interfere with the judgment of acquittal returned by the trial Court. 47. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the accused have already been acquitted by learned trial Court and according to us, there is neither any perversity nor any infirmity with the findings returned in this regard by learned trial Court, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. 48. We place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered to the Court by learned Amicus Curiae.