Gian Chand vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh

[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

JUDGMENT

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

2. Date: 2023.05.18 17:34:00 IST Reason: 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