Full Judgment Text
Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2011
[NON-REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2011
Gian Chand …Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. Judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh
dated 21.6.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 292/1998 has
been challenged by the appellant who has been convicted
under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of
₹ 1000/- with default sentence of six months. The Judgment of
acquittal of the Trial Court was reversed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SNEHA DAS
Date: 2023.05.18
17:34:00 IST
Reason:
2. The case of the prosecution was that on 15.9.1992 at
9.00 a.m., the complainant Mohar Singh, PW-1, a member of
Page 1 of 9
Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2011
Gram Panchayat, Karar accompanied by Khyali Ram, PW-6,
Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat lodged a daily diary report
with the police post Anni, District Kullu stating that at about
7.00 p.m. on 14.9.1992, after hearing noise when they came
out, they saw a verbal duel between Gian Chand, the appellant,
Mohar Lal, Ranjit and Ghum Dassi on the one hand and Salig
Ram, the deceased, on the other hand. The accused Mohar Lal
was carrying danda and other accused were carrying thick
branches of Rai. After verbal altercation continued for some
time, Gian Chand, Mohar Lal and Ranjit attacked the deceased
Salig Ram with danda as a result of which he died and they fled
from the spot. FIR came to be registered. The prosecution
produced fifteen witnesses whereas in defence, the appellant
produced Amar Singh, DW-1. The Trial Court after appreciating
the evidence, acquitted the accused. However, in appeal by
the State, the judgment of the Trial Court was reversed and the
appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC. It is
this order which is under challenge in the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
there are discrepancies in the evidence led by the prosecution.
On the basis of the statement of the eyewitnesses, the
Page 2 of 9
Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2011
appellant could not be convicted. Well-reasoned judgment of
the Trial Court has been reversed though the view taken was
possible. Admittedly, there was a land dispute between the
parties. The evidence led by the appellant in defence in the
form of statement of Amar Singh, who appeared as DW-1 was
not considered at all. He was an independent witness, though
relative of both, the appellant as well as the deceased. He
clearly stated that the deceased died on account of fall from
the danga, which was 10-12 feet high. He further submitted
that it is a case where the incident took place way back in the
year 1992. More than three decades have passed by. Families
have also settled in their lives. The matter may be considered
in that light as well.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent State submitted that the arguments sought to be
raised by the appellant are not tenable at all. Despite minor
discrepancies in the evidence led by the prosecution in the
form of eye witnesses PWs 1 to 5, who had withstood the cross-
examination, all have categorically testified that danda blow
was given by Gian Chand on the head of Salig Ram after which
he died almost instantaneously. The plea raised by the
Page 3 of 9
Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2011
appellant in defence was not tenable as the same was not
supported by the medical evidence.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the paper book and the relevant record.
6. The prosecution produced fifteen witnesses. In his
statement, Mohar Singh, PW-1 clearly stated that on 14.9.1992
about 7 p.m., he saw a scuffle between the deceased and the
accused. There was some dispute regarding the allotment of
nautor as on one side land was allotted to the deceased and on
the other side, it was allotted to the appellant. PW-1 went back
to his house. However, hearing the loud noise again, he came
back and saw Gian Chand and Mohar Lal with dandas in their
hands giving blow on the head of the deceased Salig Ram who
died at the spot. On the next day, he had gone to the police
station to report the matter. The police had taken into
possession clothes and dandas. He was an independent
witness.
7. The first ground of acquittal taken by the Trial Court
is the variance between the two versions stated by PW-1,
Mohar Singh. In the DDR dated 15.9.1992, he mentioned the
danda blow was inflicted by accused, Mohar Lal and a blow by
Page 4 of 9
Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2011
branch was given by the appellant. However, as per his
supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC
dated 15.9.1992, he corrected his previous statement whereby
he said that Gian Chand, the appellant was the one who had
inflicted the danda blow and not Mohar Lal. While deposing
before the Court, he has stated that Gian Chand had given the
dana blow. The Trial Court has erroneously concluded that the
variance between the two versions goes to the very root of the
case. It must be noted that PW-1 corrected his statement at the
first available opportunity on the same day. Furthermore,
appellant Gian Chand and accused Mohar Lal are real brothers.
There could be no occasion for the complainant to have
changed his version in order to absolve one of the brothers and
implicate the other brother, being the author of the fatal head
injury suffered by the deceased. The High Court has rightly
concluded that the variance appears to be on account of an
inadvertent mistake. PW-2 is Paras Ram. He also stated that
deceased died on account of danda blow given by the
appellant. The place of occurrence and the time is fully
corroborated by him as well. No dent could be pointed out
from his cross-examination. PW-3 Mohan Lal also stated that
Page 5 of 9
Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2011
the dispute was regarding some land, in possession of
deceased Salig Ram and accused persons wanted to take
forcible possession thereof. Widow of the deceased Salig Ram,
Devki Devi, had also suffered injuries and is a material
prosecution witness. She appeared as PW-5. She stated that
the accused sought to raise dispute regarding the land which
was allotted to her husband. The accused party including the
appellant were trying to interfere in their peaceful possession.
She also stated that her husband was beaten with danda by the
accused, Gian Chand, Mohar Lal and Ranjit, thereafter she fell
unconscious. She also denied in her cross examination that her
husband received injuries due to fall from danga.
8. On a combined reading of the depositions made by
the eye witnesses, it is clear that these do not suffer from any
major contradictions. As has been noticed by the High Court,
one must bear in mind that the occurrence has taken place on
14.9.1992 whereas the witnesses were making statements in
the court on 11.12.1996. Since there is a gap of more than four
years, minor contradictions or variations are normal. The Trial
Court has erred in basing the acquittal of the accused on these
immaterial inconsistencies. When factum of dispute between
Page 6 of 9
Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2011
the parties was even admitted by the accused in their
statement, recorded under section 313 Cr.PC.
9. As per the statement of Dr. Tejvir Singh, who
appeared as PW-7, the deceased received incised looking
lacerated wound 6” x 1” x 6” on the scalp above the left ear
and abrasion on the right scapula. There was no fracture of
skull. Dura mater was intact. Extra and subdural haemorrhage
was noticed at the site of wound. Brain matter was congested
in the region of wound. His opinion was that it was a case of
homicide caused by blunt weapon. He had also examined
Devki Devi who received lacerated wound about 1 ½ cm x ½
cm x ½ cm on left side of forehead about 1 ½” above outer
margin of left eye. There was dark red blood clotted on the
surface. The injuries inflicted upon her were opined to be
simple, caused with blunt weapon. In his cross examination he
stated that the injuries suffered by the deceased could be
caused by a fall on hard surface. This one line stated by the
doctor in his cross examination may not be of any help to
demolish the case of the prosecution which finds corroboration
with the eye witnesses’ account.
Page 7 of 9
Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2011
10. The defence version, in the form of the testimony of
DW-1 does not carry any weight for the reason that when it was
put to PW-1, PW-3, PW-5 and I.O. in their cross examination, all
have denied that the deceased received injuries due to fall from
‘thara’. In fact, stark contradiction to the defence version has
been suggested. According to Gian Chand, the appellant, the
deceased had died due to fall from ‘thara’, According to
accused Mohar Lal, also fatal injuries were suffered by the
deceased due to fall from a ’danga’. Further, accused Ranjit
Singh has altogether shifted the venue in this regard by
mentioning that injuries have been suffered due to fall from the
‘danga of the khalian’. Furthermore, DW-1 has stated “while
altercating, Salig Ram moved towards a danga of the accused
person from where he fell down. Meaning thereby he has
further shifted the venue of the alleged fall to the house of the
accused. Therefore, four different versions are coming from
the side of the defence. Firstly, the deceased had died due to
fall from the ‘thara’ of his house, secondly, from the ‘danga’ of
his house, thirdly, from the ‘danga of the khalian’ and fourthly
from the ‘danga of the accused’. Such inherent contradictions
Page 8 of 9
Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2011
cannot result in acquitting the accused. DW-1 was not an eye
witness, though claimed to be one.
11. In view of the clinching evidence produced by the
prosecution, in the form of independent witnesses, in our view,
no error has been committed by the High Court in reversing the
judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. No material
evidence was either misread or ignored. There is no merit in
the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.
_____________, J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
____________, J.
(Rajesh Bindal)
New Delhi
May 18, 2023.
// NR, SS //
Page 9 of 9