SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

State Of H.P vs Gian Chand @ Penu on 31 August, 2018


Cr. Appeal No.234 of 2007


Decided on: 31.8.2018

State of H.P. …..Appellant.


Gian Chand @ Penu               …..Respondent.


The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. 

For the appellant:  Mr.     Hemant   Vaid,   Addl.   A.G.   with
Mr.   Y.S.     Thakur   Dy.   A.G.,   for   the

For the respondent:  Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate,

Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (oral):

The   instant   appeal   stands   directed,   against,   the

verdict,   pronounced   by   the   learned   Additional   Sessions   Judge,

Shimla, District Mandi, H.P. Camp at Rohru, in Criminal Appeal

No.   14­R   of   04/02,   whereunder   he   reversed   the   judgment   of

conviction, and, consequential thereto imposition, of, sentence(s)

upon the accused, as, recorded by the learned trial Court,  vis­a­

vis the offences charged, and, rather acquitted the accused.  The

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

05/09/2018 23:00:53 :::HCHP


State   of   Himachal   Pradesh,   is,   aggrieved   therefrom,   hence   has


instituted the instant appeal before this Court. 

2. Brief   facts   of   the   case   are   that   in   the   evening   of

18.4.2002   at   about   6.30/6.45   PM,   Smt.   Sanendra   was   coming

back home from her fields and when she had reached 2­3 fields

above,   on   the   way   accused   Gian   Chand   suddenly   came   and

caught   her.     As   the   complainant   turned   back,   the   accused

caressed his hand on her breast and asked her to let him commit

a wrong act.   When the complainant released her arm from the

cluches   of   the   accused,   the   accused   subdued   her   and   started

giving beatings to her.  The accused snatched the sickle from the

hand of the complainant and inflicted a blow with it on her head.

On   her   raising   a   hue   and   cry,   Ravinder   Kumar   and   Surender

Kumar came.   On seeing them, the accused fled from the spot.

While   fleeing,   the   accused   threatened   the   complainant   with

death.     Thereafter,   the   husband   and   father­in­law   of   the

complainant also came there and took her to the house.   As a

result of the beatings complainant had sustained injuries on her

head,   arm,   shoulder   and   back.   The   complainant   went   to   the

police   station,   Rohru   and   lodged   FIR   Ext.   PW1/A.     The

investigation   into   the   case   was   conducted   by   ASI   Tej   Ram.   He

05/09/2018 23:00:53 :::HCHP

went   to   the   spot   and   prepared   the   site­plan   Ext.   PW8/A.     He


recorded the statements of witnesses supposed to be acquainted

with   the   facts   of   the   case.     The   medical   examination   of   the

complainant was got conducted from Dr. Satish Kumar.  She was

also subjected to X. Ray examination by the Radiologist Dr. P.C.

Gupta.     Medical­legal   certificate   Ext.   PW9/A,   report   of   the

Radiologist   is   Ext.   PW6/A   and   skygrams   Ext.   PW6/B   to   Ext.

PW6/D were procured. The doctor had opined the injuries to be

simple in nature.   After the completion of the investigation, the

challan was presented in the Court against the accused.   Charge

for commission of offences under Sections 354, 323, 506 of the

Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused to which he

pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.  

3. A charge for commission of offences, under, Sections

354, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal code, was, framed against the

accused, whereto, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 9

witnesses’.  On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of

the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

stood recorded, wherein, he pleaded false implication.   However,

he did not choose to lead any evidence in defence.

05/09/2018 23:00:53 :::HCHP


5. On   an   appraisal   of   evidence   on   record,   the   learned


trial   Court   returned   findings   of   conviction   qua   the   accused.

However, in an appeal carried therefrom, by, the convict before

the learned appellate Court, the latter Court reversed the findings

of conviction, and, rather proceeded to acquit the accused.

6. The   learned   Additional   Advocate   General   has

concertedly   and   vigorously   contended   qua   the   findings   of

acquittal recorded by the learned appellate Court, standing not

based, on a proper appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record,

rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis­appreciation, by it,

of material  on  record.   Hence, he contends  qua the  findings of

acquittal warranting reversal by this Court in the exercise of its

appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs standing replaced by findings of


7. The   learned   counsel   appearing,   for   the   respondent/

accused,   has   also   with   considerable   force   and   vigor   contended

qua   the   findings   of   acquittal,   recorded   by   the   Court   below

standing   based   on   a   mature   and   balanced   appreciation   of

evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating any interference,

rather theirs meriting vindication. 

05/09/2018 23:00:53 :::HCHP


8. This   Court   with  the   able   assistance,   of,   the   learned


counsel on either side has with studied care and incision, hence

evaluated the entire evidence on record.

9. The   testimony   of   the   prosecutrix,   for,   hence   (i)

credence being meted thereto, was, enjoined to be proven to be

bereft, of, gross embellishments and improvements, vis­a­vis, her

previous   statement   recorded   in   writing,   (ii)   also   enjoined

emergence,   of,   proven   corroborative   therewith,   hence,   echoings

standing   borne,   in,   the   testifications,   of,   the   prosecution

witnesses concerned, (iii)  Nowat, for, gauging qua the testification

of the prosecutrix standing not  imbued with any vice, of,  gross

embellishments   or   improvements,   vis­a­vis,   her   previous

statement recorded in writing, (iv) the trite factum qua hers’ in

the   FIR,   rather     making   a   disclosure   qua   her   father­in­law,

arriving at the spot, and, hers omitting to make any  concurrent

therewith   testification,   while   hers   stepping   into   witness   box,

rather   visibly,   and,   apparently   makes   emergence,   of,   a   gross

embellishment,   and,   improvement,   vis­a­vis,   her   previous

statement  recorded  in  writing.    Furthermore,  the  initial  version

qua the occurrence, as, embodied in the FIR, is also falsified,   by

the factum of the prosecutrix, in, the MLC borne in Ext. PW­9/A,

05/09/2018 23:00:53 :::HCHP

not,   therein   making   any   unfoldments,   rather   bearing   apt


concurrence  qua the genesis, of, the  occurrence, as set­forth in

the apposite FIR.

10. She   ascribes,   qua,     the   accused,   an   incriminatory

role, qua his, by user of sickle rather inflicting  injuries upon her

person and also ascribes, vis­a­vis, the accused, an incriminatory

role,   of,   his   belaboring   her   with   kick   and   fist   blows.   The   apt

injuries   stand   pronounced,   in   Ext.   PW9/A,   and,   thereupon   the

prosecutrix   strives   to   prove,   through,   the   afore   exhibit   qua   the

injuries,   embodied   therein,   being   a   sequel   of   the   accused

belaboring her with kick and fist blows, and, also the apt injuries,

being a sequel of the accused delivering sickle blows, upon, her


11. The   prosecutrix   would   succeed,   in,   the   aforesaid

strivings (i)   only, upon the learned   APP concerned, during, the

course   of   the   examination­in­chief   of   PW9,   rather   producing

before him, the relevant weapon of evidence, with user whereof,

the apt injuries borne in Ext. PW9/A hence stood entailed, upon

her   person,   and,   thereafter   PW9   meteing   vivid   concurrence

therewith, yet, the learned APP concerned,  rather failed to make

the aforesaid endeavor.   In aftermath, the alleged inflictions, by

05/09/2018 23:00:53 :::HCHP

the   accused   upon   the   prosecutrix,   of   injuries   as   delineated


therein,     by   his   belaboring   the   prosecutrix   with   kick   and   fist

blows,   and,   by   his   delivering   rather   sickle   blows,   upon,   her

person,   rather   stand   concluded   to     remain   un­proven.

Consequently, it is to be concluded qua the prosecutrix, grossly

failing, to, prove the trite factum qua the injuries, borne in Ext.

PW9/A, being a sequel of the accused hence belaboring her with

kick   and   fist   blows   nor   it   can   be   concluded,   qua   his,       by

delivering sickle blows upon her person, his hence, inflicting the

injuries, pronounced in Ext. PW9/A.   

12. Be   that   as   it   may,   the   learned   Additional   Advocate

General has contended with much vigor before this Court, that (i)

the recovery memo Ext. PW­1/B, whereunder, the sickle Ext. P1,

Dhatu Ext. P2 and Kilta, were recovered, and, recovery(s) whereof,

stood   effectuated   from   the   site   of   occurrence,   rather   hence

proving the genesis of the prosecution case.   However, no valid

dependence   can   be   made   thereon,   by   the   learned   Additional

Advocate   General,   for   the   reason   (a)   given   the   items,   as   borne

therein   standing   not   recovered   at   the   instance   of   the   accused,

rather, their standing recovered at the instance of the prosecutrix,

(b) recovery(s)  thereunder being made belatedly, since the taking

05/09/2018 23:00:53 :::HCHP

place,   of,   the   ill­fated   occurrence,     (c)   the   prosecutrix,   in   her


testification, failing to make bespeakings, vis­a­vis, the accused

after   inflicting   injuries   upon   her   person,   by   his   using     the   apt

sickle,   his   leaving,   it,     at   the   site   of   occurrence,   (d)   her

aforefailing, and, even her apt failings, qua her leaving kilta and

dhatu at the site of occurrence, rather begets an inference qua

the   preparation     of   Ext.   PW1/B,   being   a   sheer   concoction,

deployed   by   the   Investigating   Officer   concerned,   in,   connivance

with the prosecutrix.

13. Furthermore,   both   Surender   Singh   PW2,   and,

Ravinder Kumar PW3, who, in sequel to their respectively hearing

the  outcries   of  the   prosecutrix,   rather,   proceeded   to   the  site   of

occurrence,     reneged   from   their   respectively   recorded   previous

statements   in   writing,   (a)   both   in   their   respectively   rendered

depositions,   comprised   in   their     respectively   recorded   cross­

examinations, as, held by the learned APP concerned, bely   the

apt   incriminatory   parts,   borne   in   their   respectively   recorded

previous   statements   in   writing,   appertaining   to   the   prosecutrix

making   disclosures   to   them,   vis­a­vis,   the   apt   penal

misdemeanors,     standing   perpetrated,   upon,   her   person   by   the

accused.     The   effect   thereof   is   (b)   that   the   testification   of

05/09/2018 23:00:53 :::HCHP

prosecutrix, qua,   after completion of the occurrence, and, upon


arrival   of   the   aforesaid   PWs,   at   the   site   of   occurrence,   hers

making the apt disclosures, to them, rather standing belied.   In

addition, though, the prosecutrix and the other PWs, omitted to

in   their   respectively   recorded   testifications,   hence   made   any

disclosure   therein,   qua   the   prosectrux,   being   noticed   by   the

husband of the latter, to be   accosted by the aforesaid PWs, yet,

the   husband   of   the   prosecutrix   contradicts   them,   rather   he

makes   echoings   qua   his   noticing   the   prosecutrix,   to   stand

accosted by the aforesaid PWs.  The effect thereof, is, hence with

the husband of the prosecutrix rather contradicting the aforesaid

trite   factum,   thereupon   it   appears,   that,   the   prosecutrix,   in

connivance  with her husband, rather trying to falsely  implicate

the accused.

14. The   aforesaid   reasons,   also   acquire   immense

fortification, from the prosecutrix, in, her testification, as borne in

her   cross­examination,   making   acquiescences   qua   their   being

open enmity, and, inimicality,   inter­se, her  matrimonial family,

and,   the   accused,   and  inimicality   whereof,   she     articulates,   to,

arise from a dispute over the apt land. Consequently, with proven

inimicality, inter­se, the matrimonial family   of the prosecutrix,

05/09/2018 23:00:53 :::HCHP

and, the accused, thereupon it appears qua hers’,  at the instance


of her husband, falsely implicating the accused.

15. Last   but not the least,   the factum of user of sickle,

Ext.  P1,  by the  accused,  and,  also  the  factum,  of,  the  relevant

occurrence taking place, at, the site, of, occurrence, depicted in,

Ext.   PW8/A,   is   falsified,     (a)     by   the   Investigating   Officer

concerned rather failing to send, vis­a­vis, the SFL   concerned,

the sickle, for ensuring emergence of an apt opinion, therefrom

qua it hence carrying the blood stains, of, the prosecutrix, (b) no

blood,   as stood, spilled at the site of occurrence neither being

collected   nor   standing   sent   to   the   SFL   concerned   for   hence

ensuring eruption, of, formidable evidence qua the authenticity,

of, preparation of  site plan, borne in Ext. PW8/A.          

16. A wholesome analysis of evidence on record portrays

qua the appreciation of evidence as done by the learned appellate

Court, not, suffering  from any perversity and absurdity nor it can

be said qua the learned appellate Court in recording findings of

acquittal hence committing any legal misdemeanor, in as much,

as, its mis­appreciating the evidence on record or its omitting to

appreciate  relevant  and admissible  evidence.    In aftermath  this

Court  does  not   deem  it  fit  and  appropriate  qua   the  findings   of

05/09/2018 23:00:53 :::HCHP

acquittal recorded by the learned appellate Court hence meriting


any interference. 

17. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this

appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the judgment of the

learned appellate Court is maintained and affirmed. Fine amount,

if any, be refunded.   Personal and surety bonds are discharged.

Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.

                       (Sureshwar Thakur)
31  August, 2018

05/09/2018 23:00:53 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation