Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2681 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lal Chand

2016-12-19

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J. 1. The present appeal is maintained by the appellant/State of Himachal Pradesh, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, assailing the judgment of acquittal, dated 31.03.2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P. in Cr. Appeal No. 18/2006, whereby the judgment of the conviction, dated 01.06.2006, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. in Cr. Case No. 263-1/2004/9-II/2005, was set aside. 2. Briefly stating the facts, as per the prosecution story, giving rise to the present appeal are that on 04.11.2004, Devta Hari Narayan was brought to the village Neri (Pichlidhar) for the darshan of the public,. After taking dinner the people of the village left for their houses, but the complainant Raju alongwith Gian Chand, Kali Ram, Lalu and Lal Chand remained there. At about 10.00 p.m. when the complainant and other persons were sitting around the fire, the accused came their and threw complainant Raju into the fire and voluntarily caused hurt to him, when the complainant came out of the fire the accused again pushed him from the danga. Consequently the complainant sustained injuries on his body. On the next morning, i.e., 05.11.2004, the complainant was got admitted in Zonal Hospital, Kullu for medical treatment, message in this regard was received in the Police Station, Manali, on the basis of which Rapat Ex. PW-5/A, was recorded. After recording the Rapat, Police party rushed to the Zonal Hospital, Kullu, where statement of the complainant, under Section 154 of Cr.PC, Ex. PW-1/A, was recorded, on the basis of which, FIR Ex. PW-6/C, was registered against the accused. HC, Khem Chand, visited the spot and prepared spot map, Ex. PW-6/A, took into possession Jacket of the complainant, Ex. P-1, vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-2/A, and obtained MLR, Ex. PW-4/A, he also recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.PC. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as seven witnesses. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein accused denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. No defence evidence was led by the accused. 4. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State and learned defence counsel for the respondent/accused. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the judgment passed by the learned lower Appellate Court is perverse and required to be set aside. No defence evidence was led by the accused. 4. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State and learned defence counsel for the respondent/accused. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the judgment passed by the learned lower Appellate Court is perverse and required to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused/respondent has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused, as the statements of the witnesses are contradictory with each other and the guilt of the accused was not proved on record at all. He has further argued that the complainant has grudge against the accused, due to land transaction, thus he was implicated in a false case. 6. To appreciate the arguments of learned Additional Advocate General and learned defence counsel, this Court has gone through the record in detail. 7. The prosecution has examined complainant, Raju as PW-2, who testified that on the said day, when he was around the fire alongwith other persons, the accused came and threw him in the fire, due to which he sustained burn injuries and when he came out of the fire he was again pushed by the accused from the danga and he sustained injuries in his body. He further deposed that on the next day he was brought to the Hospital at Kullu, where his statement, Ex. PW-1/A, was recorded by the Police. In his cross-examination he denied that at the time of the said occurrence he was under the influence of liquor, due to which he fell into the fire of his own and sustained injuries. 8. PW-7, Kalu Ram, has testified that the occurrence had not taken place in his presence. In his cross-examination he admitted that on the said day the accused was under the influence of liquor. 9. Nothing has come on record why delay has occurred in lodging the FIR. In these circumstances, whether the complainant fell due to intoxication cannot be ruled out. At the same point of time, eye witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and noting favourable has come to the prosecution in their examination. It has also come on record that injuries were caused with blunt weapon, but no weapon was produced or recovered by the Police. 10. At the same point of time, eye witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and noting favourable has come to the prosecution in their examination. It has also come on record that injuries were caused with blunt weapon, but no weapon was produced or recovered by the Police. 10. At the same point of time, in the absence of any reasonable and plausible explanation of delay in lodging FIR, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution version, and also the contradictory statements of the witnesses create suspicion. 11. It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 , that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 , has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 13. So, in the opinion of this Court, the findings of the learned Court below cannot be said to be perverse and against the law, as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused conclusively and beyond reasonable doubt. 14. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the discussion made hereinabove, I find no merit in this appeal and the same deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.