IMPORTANT POINT
When there are contradictions and omissions of serious nature casting doubt on prosecution case, conviction for offence of murder could not be sustained.

JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-Respondent herein was found guilty of offences punishable under sections 302, 449 and 324 IPC by the Sessions Judge, Solan, Himachal Pradesh and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 for the offence under section 302,10 years RI with a fine of Rs. 5,000 for an offence under section 449 and one year RI with a fine of Rs. 4,000 under section 324. In an appeal filed by the respondent, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Simla, allowed the same, setting aside the conviction and sentence. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the State of Himachal Pradesh is in appeal before us. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are:

2. The respondent was originally engaged to be married to one Amarjit Kaur PW-6. For some reason or the other, said engagement was broken and she was married to Ranjit Singh PW-2 who is the younger brother of Respondent No.2. This was about 7 years prior to the date of the incident which was on the night of 27.9.1994. Prosecution alleges that being angered by the fact that his engagement was cancelled the respondent was constantly threatening PW-6 who was residing with her husband in the same building but in another part separately from the respondent. On 27.9.1994 at about 9.30 p.m., PW-6 allegedly went to her parents house which was situated close-by in another block and informed her father Mohan Singh PW-1 about her fear that she may be attacked by the respondent, hence PW-1, his wife (since deceased) and two sons of PW-1 PWs.3 and 5 accompanied PW-6 to her house with an intention of spending the night with their daughter. It is the case of the prosecution that PW-2 also came back from his business later in the night and joined them. Prosecution further alleges sometime later the respondent entered the house of PW-2, armed with a dagger, and picked up a fight with PW-1 during which fight he stabbed PW-1 on his thigh who then became unconscious. Thereafter, he allegedly stabbed the wife of PW-1 on the chest and escaped from the place when PW-1 s sons PWs.3 and 5 tried to intervene in the fight. Prosecution alleges that Mohinder Kaur died on the spot and PW-1 was taken to the hospital by their children where the doctor informed the jurisdictional Police about the incident in question, and PW-10 the I.O. went to the hospital, recorded the statement and a case was registered for offences, as stated above.

3. In support of its case the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs 1, 3, 5 & 6 as eye-witnesses. Out of them PW-2 did not support the prosecution case as he turned hostile. The trial court accepted the evidence led by the prosecution and convicted the respondent, as stated above, and in appeal the High Court noticed certain serious discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution, hence, it thought it not safe to rely on the prosecution case to base a conviction. Accordingly, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the respondent.

4. Mr. J.S. Attri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State, contended that the contradictions noticed by the High Court in the prosecution evidence are minor in nature and the same have been considered by the trial court which felt that these short comings in the prosecution case would not, in any manner, weaken the prosecution case. He further contended in that background the High Court erred in allowing the appeal solely on the basis of the said discrepancies or contradictions.

5. The learned counsel has taken us through the evidence in the case as also the judgments of the two courts below. In our opinion, there is lot of doubt surrounding the prosecution case from the very beginning itself as noticed by the High Court. PW-10, the I.O. in his evidence clearly states that he received a telephonic message from the doctor in the hospital, hence, he went to the hospital where he recorded the statement of PW-1 which is now treated as an FIR in this case; where