State vs. Goldi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Criminal Appeal No.185 of 2002

Date of decision : March 10, 2009

Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral)

State has appealed against the judgment dated 28.6.2001 of learned trial Magistrate, whereby respondent Goldi alias Ravinder Kumar, who was charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 452, 324 and 323 IPC, has been acquitted.

2. Allegations on which the respondent was sent up for trial are that on 8.7.1996 around 4.30 PM, he went to the house of PW-3 Gaitri Devi and attacked her in the kitchen. She sustained simple injuries on her arms. Matter was reported to the police, the same day at 7.30 PM. PW-3 Gaitri Devi was got medically examined. Doctor opined that one of the injuries, on her right forearm, could have been caused by means of knife. So, the police registered a case, under Sections 452, 323, 324 IPC against the respondent and on completion of investigation challaned him.

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

3. To bring the charge home to the respondent, prosecution examined injured PW-3 Gaitri Devi, her brother-in-law PW-5 Tek Chand, who allegedly rescued her and disarmed the respondent, PW-4 Geeta Devi, mother-in-law of Gaitri Devi, PW-7 Neelam Kumari and PW-8 Sataya Devi, who were allegedly present at the house of Gaitri Devi at the time of assault. Trial Court has disbelieved the version of prosecution with the reasoning that admittedly the parties are on inimical terms and the witnesses examined by the prosecution do not corroborate each other. Also, the trial Magistrate has noticed that as per opinion of the doctor injuries allegedly caused by means of knife could have been sustained as a result of fall on some sharp object.

4. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General representing the appellant and gone through the record.

5. All the witnesses examined in the case are the family members of injured PW-3 Gaitri Devi. Though all of them have testified that respondent came there and assaulted PW-3 Gaitri Devi with a knife, yet there are some inherent discrepancies in their evidence, which render their testimony doubtful, especially when it is the admitted case of the injured that she and her family members are not on speaking terms with the respondent, because of their inimical relations.

6. PW-3 Gaitri Devi testified that on hearing her cries, PW-5 Tek Chand, her brother-in-law, was the first to reach the kitchen, who overpowered the respondent and snatched the knife from him. However, PW-5 Tek Chand does not say that he had snatched the knife from the respondent, though he does say that he reached the kitchen and overpowered the accused. As per memo. Ext.PW13/A regarding seizure of knife Ext.P-2, the knife was produced by the respondent. Now if the knife had been snatched by PW-5 Tek Chand, as testified by injured PW-3 Gaitri Devi, how could it have been produced to the police by the respondent.

7. It has come in the evidence that a large number of villagers, about 25, had witnessed the occurrence, but none other than the family members of the injured was produced in the trial Court. None of the injuries sustained by PW-3 Gaitri Devi was serious in nature. PW-6 Dr. Chaman Lal, who examined the injured, stated in no uncertain terms that the injuries were possible as a result of fall on a sharp edged object.

8. In view of the above stated position, I do not think this to be a fit case for interference in the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

March 10, 2009(ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J