Back
2010 Supreme(HP) 1332
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
R.B. MISRA, SURINDER SINGH, JJ.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Surinder Singh Giani - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 651 of 2000
Decided On : 25-11-2010
For the Appellant :R.K. Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General.
For the Respondent: Varinder S. Rathore.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 154, 161, 313 – Offence of Murder – Information in Cognizable Cases – Power to examine the accused – Examination of witnesses by police – Respondent was tried and acquitted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, for murder – Thus, State felt aggrieved by impugned judgment of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sessions case decided, filed instant appeal – Held, In instant case, these two witnesses are said to be witnesses not disclosing relevant information to any one including police at earliest till,which creates a serious doubt about genuineness of prosecution case – More so, when a large number of crowd had gathered there, police could have also recorded statement of some of independent witnesses as to what they had seen on spot, where as already stated above, other set of alleged eye witness including injured did not implicate respondent – Thus, in view of aforesaid, in our considered opinion, learned trial court rightly rejected testimonies of PW-6 and PW-12, from its consideration – Court also find that no implicit reliance can be placed upon them for converting acquittal into conviction – Therefore, Court are of view that prosecution has failed to prove offence charged against respondent in accordance with law beyond reasonable doubt – Hence dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Surinder Singh, J.
Respondent was tried and acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, for the murder of one Sunil Kumar. Thus, the State felt aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions case No.6-N/VII/99 decided on 22.7.2000, filed the instant appeal.
2. In short, prosecution story can be stated thus. The respondent, a resident of Jallandhar (Pb), was running a tyre repair shop in Milwan Bazar, Tehsil Indora. PW-2, Ravi Kumar and Santokh Singh (PW-3), both were friends. On 24.7.1998, they came together to Milwan Bazar. When both of them were sitting in the scooter repair shop of Sarvjeet (PW-4. They took tea. Thereafter Santokh Singh requested PW-2 Ravi Kumar to drop him in jeep at his house. When both of them had just reached near the jeep, in the meantime, respondent came on his bicycle and accidentally hit on the side of jeep. (PW-2) Ravi Kumar protested. On this, respondent got infuriated and started abusing him. Deceased Sunil Kumar, who was standing nearby, intervened. Respondent also started abusing Sunil Kumar. Sunil Kumar objected to it. On this, respondent allegedly took out his 'Karpan' from its sheen and dealt a blow on the neck of Sunil Kumar which caused a bleeding injury. Sunil Kumar fell down and shouted for help. On this, Ravi Kumar covered the body of Sunil Kumar by lying upon him. Respondent also gave 'Karpan' blow which hit back of Ravi Kumar. On hearing noise, many persons assembled on the spot.
3. Sunil Kumar, injured, was removed to the hospital by Santokh Singh (PW-3) Sham Lal (PW-6) and Darshan Lal (PW-12). Later in the hospital, he was declared dead.
4. Another injured Ravi Kumar was admitted for the treatment of his injury in the hospital at Mukarian. (PW-14) ASI Om Parkash was already present in the hospital in connection with an accident case. On coming to know about the said incident and the death of Sunil Kumar, he sent a wireless message to Police station, Indora. Thereafter, (PW-15) SI Parkash Chand reached hospital and recorded the statement Ex PW8/B of PW-2 Ravi Kumar under section 154 of Cr.PC. The Investigating Officer prepared the inquest report Ex PW-1/B and the dead body was sent for autopsy to civil hospital, Nurpur.
5. Police recorded the statement of eye witnesses and on completing the investigation of the case, challan was presented before the court for trial of the respondent. The respondent was accordingly charge sheeted for the offence aforesaid to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondent was also examined under section 313 of Cr.PC. He admitted his presence at the time of alleged incident, but he alleged his false implication in the case. According to him, at the time of alleged incident, it had gone dark. He was attacked by the deceased and he struggled a lot to extricate himself from his clutches. On hearing the commotion, about 25/30 people gathered there who had came from the side of a liquor vend. At that time, deceased was threatening him proclaiming that he would not spare him at any rate. Apprehending his death, he rushed towards other ends of the bushes. Persons who had gathered tried to rescue him. At that time, it had become fairly dark. The deceased might have been hit by someone from the crowd. But, however, he could not explain the injury suffered by Ravi Kumar and denied having been inflicted by him. When called upon to enter his defence, he did not lead his evidence in defence.
7. At the end of trial, he was acquitted by the learned trial court, on the ground that the alleged eye witnesses of the incident, namely, PW -2 Ravi Kumar, PW-3 Santokh Singh, PW-4 Sarvjeet Singh did not support the case of the prosecution as they turned hostile to the prosecution. The statements of PW-6 Sham Lal and PW-12 Darshan Lal, both uncles of the deceased, did not inspire confidence for the reasons that
