State of H.P. vs Madan Lal and others

inconsistent, and full of discrepancies and infirmities, which make the prosecution case highly doubtful. Consequently, it acquitted all the respondents.

11. We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the evidence. (cid:133)5(cid:133)

12. PW-2 Pawan Kumar, who lodged report with the police, by making statement Ex. PE, turned hostile. He denied that the occurrence, in the manner reported by him to the police, vide report Ex. PE, had taken place. He even denied having made statement Ex. PE to the Police. About the injuries on his own person, he stated that he had sustained the same in an accident two days prior to the occurrence. The witness is a liar, on the face of it. PW-8 Dr. S.K. Nanda, who conducted his medical examination within 4-5 hours of the occurrence, gave the opinion that the injuries appeared to have been sustained within six hours. Also, his testimony is not consistent. Therefore, neither the defence nor the prosecution can take any help from his testimony.

13. Statement of PW-1 Ram Pal cannot be believed, because it is not corroborated by the earliest version, which was given to the police or by any other evidence. Witness has stated that he was given a blow with axe Ex. P-3 on his head by respondent Rattan Chand and that the axe was supplied to him by respondent Yudhvir.

14. Axe Ex. P-3 had stains of human blood. It was sent to the Chemical Examiner. As per report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex. PS, stains of human blood were there on the axe, but the blood group was (cid:145)AB(cid:146). Injured Ram Pal(cid:146)s own blood group is (cid:145)O(cid:146), because on his blood stained clothes, which were sent to the Chemical Examiner, (cid:133)6(cid:133) stains of human blood of (cid:145)O(cid:146) group have been found, per aforesaid report Ex. PS. It may be stated that these clothes were the same, which Ram Pal was wearing at the time of the incident and on which a few drops of blood had allegedly fallen, per Ram Pal(cid:146)s own statement.

15. Again, Ram Pal (PW-1) says that he was dealt blows of iron rod on his neck and back by respondent Yudhvir. However, in the FIR, there is no mention of any blows having been dealt by respondent Yudhvir, with an iron rod. Not only this, no injury was noticed on the neck or the upper back of Ram Pal by PW-8 Dr. S.K. Nanda. Abrasions were noticed only on the lower back and the abdomen.

16. Kishori Lal (PW-3) stated that on the relevant date he had attended his duty at Jajon in Punjab State upto 5 p.m. and thereafter he left Jajon for his village, as he had received a message that his mother was sick. The witness admits that his village falls between the point where he deboarded a truck and the place where the incident had taken place. He does not explain why did he go to the place of occurrence, instead of going to his house first, especially when, according to him, his mother was sick and he came to the village only on getting the message about his mother(cid:146)s sickness. Also, the witness stated that the incident had taken place around 8 p.m., but the case of the prosecution is that it had taken place at 7.30 p.m. (cid:133)7(cid:133) Moreover, this witness is having criminal cases with many of the respondents, as admitted by him in the cross- examination. In view of the abovestated position, we do not think this to be a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J April 28, 2010(sd) ( V.K. Sharma ), J