Revisional court acquitted accused in face of concurrent convictions, holding lower courts perversely overlooked prosecution doubts from witness contradictions, enmity, suspect recovery and accused's post-snake bite incapacity.

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 20.06.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 22.06.2011 and order of sentence dated 27.06.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504, 506 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the informant, Kanauri Devi (PW1), was returning with her cattle on 16.07.2005 at about 3:00 pm. When she reached Siyabai, the accused Sohan Lal stopped her. He asked her why she had taken her cattle into his land. The informant replied that she had not taken her cattle to his land, and she was taking the cattle to her home. The accused abused the informant and gave her beatings with sticks. She sustained injuries. She shouted for help. Bimla Devi (PW4) heard the noise and came to the spot. She rescued the informant from the accused. The accused threatened to kill the informant. The informant was taken to the hospital, and an intimation was given to the police. An entry (Ext.PW7/A) was recorded in the Police Station. ASI Vijay Pal (PW12) and LHC Nand Lal went to the hospital to verify the correctness of the information. ASI Vijay Pal (PW12) recorded the informant’s statement (Ext.PW1/A) and sent it to the police station, where FIR (Ext.PW9/A) was registered. ASI Vijay Pal (PW12) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ex.PW12/A). The accused produced the stick (Ext.P1), which was seized vide memo (Ext.PW1/A). Dr R.D. Anand (PW11) medically examined the victim. He found that the victim had suffered multiple injuries. He referred her to the higher institution for further treatment and issued the MLC (Ext.PW11/A). Dr Sandeep Vaidya (PW5) conducted a partial patellectomy of the left leg of the informant at IGMC Shimla. Fractures of the left Patella, right ulna, and base of the first right metacarpal were detected after the X-rays. Hence, the nature of injuries was grievous, which could have been caused within six hours of the examination by means of a stick (Ext.P1). Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, he was charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 325, 341, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses to prove its case. Kanauri Devi (PW1) is the informant. Bansi (PW2) was told about the incident. He went to the spot and took the informant with him. Kunta Devi (PW3) is an eyewitness. Bimla Devi (PW4) and Kamla Devi (PW10) did not support the prosecution’s case. Dr Sandeep Vaidya (PW5) treated the informant at IGMC Shimla. Khem Chand (PW6) is the witness to recovery. Ramesh Chand (PW7) proved the entry in the daily diary. Bansi Lal (PW8) is the witness to recovery. Prem Chand (PW9) signed the FIR. Dr R.D. Anand (PW11) medically examined