Appeal by State against acquittal in murder attempt case. This court upheld the acquittal, holding that prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt due to untrustworthy eye-witness testimony and lack of corroborative evidence linking respondents to the crime.
Acquittal of respondents affirmed; appeal dismissed; bail bonds discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No. 257 of 2011 Judgment reserved on 24th August, 2017 Date of Decision 25th October, 2017
________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant Versus Het Ram and others ….Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
______________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Additional Advocate General with Mr.Puneet Rajta, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondens: Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate. _____________________________________________________________
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
State has preferred present appeal against acquittal of respondents vide judgment dated 21.3.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2010 under Sections 307, 201 and 120-B
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2
of Indian Penal Code read with Section 5 of the Arms Act in case FIR No. 160 of 2009 dated 14.11.2009 registered in P.S. Banjar, District Kullu.
3
defence. On conclusion of trial, respondents stand acquitted by the trial Court.
that the trial Court has committed a mistake by acquitting respondents on the ground that ocular evidence of complainant is not supported by medical evidence and that medical evidence read with other evidence on record has rendered prosecution story doubtful. He has relied upon State of Punjab vs. Hakam Singh (2005)7 SCC 408 and Edward vs. Inspector of Police, Aandimadam Police Station (2015)11 SCC 222 in support of his submissions that whenever there is conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimonies, normally ocular testimonies should be preferred and medical evidence be preferred only when it belies fundamental facts of prosecution story and there is no legal impediment in convicting a person on sole testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. According to him, in present case testimony of PW1 is trustworthy and reliable on material particulars necessary to be established on record to punish the respondents.
4
5
his previous statement recorded by the police. In his cross examination by learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted the signatures on memo Ext.PW5/A which have been relied upon by the prosecution for proving picking up of samples of blood stained soil from the spot, but he has categorically denied taking of such samples in his presence. Another witness PW6 has also not lent the support to the prosecution on this count.
6
He admitted his signatures on memo Ext.PW3/A, seizure memo Ext.PW3/B and sketch Ext.PW3/C but has categorically denied his statement as recorded by police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In his cross examination on behalf of the respondents, he stated that gun Ext.P1 was shown to him when he was on the way to Banjar and his signatures were also taken on already prepared documents.
7
record. There is no scientific evidence to link the gun, allegedly recovered at the instance of respondents, with commission of offence. Prosecution has proved on record chemical analysis report Ext.PW16/A wherein it is reported that blood lifted on the cotton from the spot, pellet/bullet, top/hood and T-shirt of PW1 Som Nath (injured/complainant) and the blood samples were found to be human blood but results were found inconclusive in respect of blood groups. This chemical analysis report does not link the respondents/accused with commission of offence in any manner.
8
According to him, injuries noticed by him could be caused by gun shot and he further deposed that MLC Ext.PW15/A was issued by him and further that according to discharge slip of IGMC bullet/pellet was removed from the body of PW1 after operation. He found both injuries appearing to be grievous and capable of endangering life. In cross examination, he has stated that he had not given his opinion at the time of examination because he was not sure whether it was bullet injury or other injury as injuries noticed by him could have been caused by other means as well. 15. Though PW15 in his examination in chief stated that as reported in discharge slip of IGMC bullet/pellet was removed after operation. But prosecution has not placed on record any such discharge slip on record to prove the said fact and also any other oral or documentary evidence to link the removed bullet/pellet with injuries reported in MLC Ext.PW15/A. The deposition of PW15 that injuries noticed by him could have been caused by other means as well becomes relevant in absence of link evidence to connect the alleged treatment in IGMC and removal of bullet/pellet after operation.
9
investigation and their statements will be relevant only if prosecution case is otherwise found to be trusworthy. As apparent from aforesaid discussion, only eye witness to incident is injured/complainant examined as PW1.
10
the fact stated in Ext.PW1/A wherein he has stated that he was having Rs.6000/- with him and he visited the house of Het Ram for purchasing charas and on account of non-availability of charas he returned home with respondent and one another person. There is no reference that respondent Het Ram assured to arrange the charas from other villagers. It has also come in evidence that respondents are cousions. Name of Budh Ram is not mentioned in Ext.PW1/A and it is stated that another person had gone towards other side and complainant and Het Ram moved towards Bhararu temple and on reaching near Bhararu temple, at about 10.30 AM, Het Ram asked to hand over Rs.6000/- to him and on refusal, he threatened to shot him dead, whereupon PW1 started moving in front of him, but Het Ram shot him on his back. PW1 raised noise on the spot and tried to run from the spot and during this process Het Ram ran from the spot and after sometime a child came on the spot, on whose information villagers reached at the spot and took him to Gharatgard from where he was taken to hospital by the police. In his deposition in Court, PW1 introduced a new story that in the morning Het Ram assured him to arrange the charas from villagers and they went to the house of Meghu Ram (examined as PW2 Narotam @ Maghu Ram) and on inquiry he denied
11
availability of charas with him, thereupon he along with respondents proceeded to arrange charas from other persons whereafter respondent Het Ram asked PW1 to hand over entire cash to him whereupon PW1, saying that money was not in his pocket but in the bag, threw the bag asking respondent Het Ram to have the money from the bag. But respondent Het Ram pointed out that money was in pocket of complainant PW1 and when PW1 tried to proceed ahead, respondent Het Ram pointing the pellet gun towards him, asked to hand over the money with threat to kill on not doing so. Thereupon, PW1 told respondent Het Ram that somebody was coming behind him and when respondent Het Ram turned back to see that person, PW1 tried to run away with his bag. However, respondent Het Ram shot him on his left shoulder. This deposition of PW1 is contrary to version given in his statement Ext.PW1/A. Not only this, contrary to statement Ext.PW1/A, wherein he has stated that he tried to run from the spot and raised alarm and during that time respondent Het Ram ran from the spot, however, in the Court he has stated that respondent Het Ram ran after him and he also ran and reached in village and fell in the field.
12
PW1 who were going together to return home, whereas in Court PW1 deposed that he along with respondent was going to villagers for arranging charas. There are material contradictions going to the root of the genesis of prosecution case, creating a doubt on credibility of PW1. These contradictions have rendered the testmony of PW1 untrustworthy and unreliable. It appears that PW1, neither in his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. nor in his deposition in Court, has stated true facts, but there is something which is being hidden by him from the Court.
20 PW6, who informed the police, specifically stated in examination in chief that at the time of informing police, injured person was unconscious and was taken to Banjar hospital, whereas PW13 ASI Man Singh, Investigating Officer, stated that when he met PW1 at Gharatgaad he inquired from him as to how he had sustained injuries whereupon PW1 had revealed that he was shot by Het Ram. But he had not recorded his statement at this time. Now, there is contradictory version of prosecution witnesses with respect to the state of consciousness of PW1, which also creates doubt about prosecution version.
21 Statement of PW1 complainant itself is not reliable and therefore deposition of other witnesses who were associated during investigation is not necessary to be discussed. It is settled
13
law that when there is doubt, the benefit of same is to be extended to the accused. There is no evidence against respondent Budh Ram.
22 In view of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, respondents are entitled for benefit of doubt.
23 Respondents have advantage of acquittal by the trial Court forfifying the presumption of innocence in their favour. Prosecution has failed to point out any incriminatory evidence on record against the respondents. The trial Court has considered the entire evidence on record completely and correctly. There is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in judgement. Acquittal of respondents has neither resulted into travesty of justice nor has caused miscarriage of justice. Therefore, we find no ground for inferference in the impugned judgment. Appeal is dismissed accordingly. Bail/surety bonds furnished by respondents and their sureties are discharged. Record be sent back to the concerned Court.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents.
Whether the contradictions in the eye-witness testimony rendered the testimony untrustworthy.
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents was legally sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab v. Hakam SinghReferred¶19
State of Punjab vs. Hakam Singh (2005)7 SCC 408 · Who else cites this
Edward v. Inspector of Police, Aandimadam Police StationReferred¶19
Edward vs. Inspector of Police, Aandimadam Police Station (2015)11 SCC 222 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Himachal Pradesh
Het Ram
Budh Ram
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Vivek Singh Thakur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
