Rajiv Sharma, J.—The State has come in appeal against Judgment dated 17.7.2008 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, HP in Sessions Trial No. 2/05-29/06, whereby respondents-accused (hereinafter referred to as ''accused'' for convenience sake), who were charged with and tried for offences under Sections 324, 307, 454, 392, 397 read with Section 34 IPC, have been acquitted.
2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that Chet Ram who was posted as a Clerk in Government High School, Shangar was carrying cash of Rs. 75,000/- in his bag. He had withdrawn this amount from Punjab National Bank for disbursing salary of the staff of his school and same had been kept by him at his quarter in village Lohat. While he was present in the courtyard of his house, he saw Nirat and Devender along with another boy Raju crossing through the footpath adjacent to his house. After sometime, while he was washing utensils under the tap in the courtyard of his house, all the three accused persons put a cloth on his face and gave him beatings, due to which he became unconscious and he was thrown in the bushes. The complainant Chet Ram regained consciousness after some time. He went to the house of one Sarnu which was at a distance of about half a kilometre from his house and told him about the occurrence and requested him to take him to the Headmaster of the school. He was then taken to the residence of the Headmaster who made complaint to the police. Chet Ram was taken to the PHC Sainj where he was medically examined. Accused Nirat Singh expressed his desire to one Lila Dhar Pradhan to surrender before the police and he was taken to Police Station where he surrendered and also handed over Rs. 54,440/- being part of looted amount. Later, a sum of Rs. 20,708/- was deposited by Devender Singh accused. They confessed to Lila Dhar Pradhan about giving beatings to Chet Ram and decamped with the money. Accused also made disclosure statement and got recovered some other articles which had been taken from the house of complainant. Investigation was completed. Challan was put in the Court after completing all the codal formalities.
3. Prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused were also examined under Section 313 CrPC. They pleaded innocence. One witness was also examined from the defence side. Learned trial Court acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal.
4. Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused.
5. Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate, has strongly argued that the prosecution has failed to prove case against accused.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully.
7. PW-1 Dr. V.P. Negi deposed that the injured was brought with alleged history of beating. He found following injuries on the person of complainant:
1. There was transverse lacerated wound on temporal region with clotted blood present over the scalp hair, face, neck and chest region. The wound was measuring 3.4 cm long x 0.3 cm in width and 0.3 cm deep.
2. There was lacerated wound in L shape over temporal region with clotted blood present on the injury. The injury was measuring 10.2 cm long, 0.4 cm in width and 0.3 cm deep.
3. There was lacerated wound over right parital region running obliquely with blood present on scalp hair. The injury was 1.7 cm long x 0.2 cm wide and 0.2 cm deep.
4. There was multiple abrasion on right chin and ankle anteriorally.
8. PW-1 Dr. V.P. Negi, issued MLC Ext. PW-1/B. According to him, injuries, specifically injuries No. 1 to 3 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Volunteered that the victim had not been given timely medical aid. Injuries No.1 to 3 were on vital part of body. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that by ''sharp weapon'' he meant sharp edged wooden piece as a splinter of wood. It could be Drat, knife etc. Injury No.1 singularly was not sufficient to cause death. He has not given opinion that injury No.2 alone was sufficient to cause death. He did not testify that the nature of injury was simple. He further testified that the nature of injury No. 1 was simple, injury No.2 was also simple. Injuries No. 3 and 4 were also simple. He deposed in his cross-examination that nature of all the four injuries mentioned in MLC Ext. PW-1/B was simple in nature. He was re-examined by the Public Prosecutor. He then stated that injury No. 2 was sufficient to cause death of injured Chet Ram and injury was grievous in nature.
9. PW-2 Chet Ram testified that he was authorised and used to draw the salary and other cash for the school staff from Punjab National Bank Banjar by virtue of being Clerk. In the beginning, he used to reside in the rented quarter in the house of Narain Singh in village Dhara and for the last three years, prior to the occurrence, he was residing in the rented accommodation in the house of Lila Dhar, Pradhan at place Lohat. Nearest house located from said accommodation is at a distance of � km. There was no house in the vicinity. On 1.6.2004, he left his quarter at 7 AM for collecting salary and other money from Punjab National Bank Banjar. When he left to the bank, he was having Rs. 4,000/- with him of the scholarship of the students which was given to him by the Headmaster along with Challan to be deposited in the Bank after getting it passed from the Treasury. He carried pay bills and said cash in a bag. He reached Banjar bus stand at 1.30 PM. He presented the pay bills and authority letter given to him and drew an amount of Rs. 70,748/-. He kept the amount in the bag and carried cash. He reached late in his quarter between 7.30 PM to 7.45 PM. He was not feeling well. He had to leave for the school after some time. In between, he kept the bag in the almirah and took water. Before taking lime water he went to bring water from the tap in a jug. The tap is located by the side of courtyard of his residence. During the said time, when he had come out from his quarter, after keeping the cash bag in almirah, he had seen Raju, Nirat and Davinder passing through the path adjoining to his residence. All of them were proceeding towards village Madana and High School Shangar. After taking lime water, he proceeded to the tap to wash jug, glass and knife. After reaching the tap, he cleaned the glass. When he started cleaning the jug and bent down to clean the jug, cloth was put on his head and face. He tried to remove the said cloth and in between the scuffle he saw that all the three accused persons were present. Thereafter, they inflicted injuries on his person. He fell unconscious. He regained consciousness after some time and he found himself in the bushes near the tap. On regaining consciousness, he came out of bushes and went to the house of Sarnu which was the nearest house from his residence which was about half a kilometre. He fell down in the verandah. He was lifted to the residence of Headmaster Jagjit Singh of Government High School, Shangar. In the meantime, Headmaster and other staff members reached there. They noted down his statement. His residence remained open. Headmaster asked Nainu Ram, Chowkidar to go and lock his residence. Arbind, Baldev Shastri and Prem Chand, Lab. Technician had reached there. He was lifted to Neoli. ASI Biri Singh Thakur met them at Neoli. From Neoli he was taken to Hospital at Sainj. He admitted his signatures on MLC Ext. PW-1/B. On the following day i.e. 2.6.2004, he accompanied the police to the spot. Quarter was opened. The bag in which cash was there was not found in the almirah. On 2.6.2004, he disclosed the names of accused to the police. Names and addresses of accused were disclosed by him to the police because the Headmaster and the villagers had assured him of his safety and change of his residence in the locality. After getting said assurance he disclosed the names and identity of the accused. In his cross-examination, he deposed that his first statement was recorded by the police at Sainj in the Hospital vide Ext. PW-2/B. Statement was recorded by the police after first aid was given. It was recorded in the morning hours. He had not stated to the police in his first statement that he knew the three boys namely Raju, Nirat and Davinder who passed from the footpath and later on they put a cloth over his head and face and when he scuffled and removed the cloth, he identified all the three accused. Volunteered that he had not disclosed their names and identity out of fear. He had asked Sarnu to take him to the Headmaster''s house.
10. PW-3 Jagdish Chand deposed that in the year 2004, PW-2 was posted as Clerk in Government High School, Shangar. He had authorised PW-2 Chet Ram Clerk of his school to collect the salary of the staff members and other dues and also to deposit any amount if required in the bank and to get the Challan etc. passed from the Treasury concerned. For the month of May, 2004, he had authorised PW-2 to collect the salary of the staff of GHS Shangar from PNB Banjar. On 1.6.2004, at abut 8.30 PM, the villagers lifted PW-2 Chet Ram and brought to him. PW-2 Chet Ram had suffered injuries on his head and was bleeding profusely. He had talked to Chet Ram. He disclosed that the salary had been taken. He stated that three boys had attacked him. He called his staff members. Villagers also came on the spot.
11. PW-6 Lila Dhar deposed that he was ex Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Shangar. He was not knowing third accused in the case i.e. Raj Kumar. He never met Nirat Singh and Raj Kumar after the occurrence nor did they make any disclosure statement before him. He never took Nirat Singh to Police Post Sainj nor did he produce stolen money to the police in his presence. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He denied the suggestion that the accused Nirat Singh produced currency notes of Rs. 54,440/- to the police out of stolen money. (Confronted with portion B to B of his statement Mark X-2, wherein it is so recorded). He also denied that currency notes were sealed in his presence with seal ''X''. However, he identified his signatures on the parcels. He also denied that the seal was handed over to him.
12. PW-7 Prem Singh deposed that he reached the residence of Headmaster Jagjit Singh at 7.45 PM. When he was proceeding to the residence of PW-3, he found PW-2 Chet Ram was lying near the residence of PW-3 on the road and there were injuries on his head, which were bleeding. PW-3, Arbind Sharma, Baldev Chand Shastri and 2-3 villagers were present there with PW-2 Chet Ram. PW-3 Jagjit Singh stated to him that PW-2 Chet Ram was beaten up by somebody hence he asked him to go to the school and telephone the Police Post Sanij. On 2.6.2004 at about 2 PM they started from Sainj along with police, PW-2 Chet Ram injured, two other teachers and went to the residence of Chet Ram in village Lohat. Nainu Ram handed over key of the quarter. The lock was unlocked. No money or bag was found inside the quarter.
13. PW-8 Tek Singh deposed that on 9.6.2004 none of the accused including Nirat Ram made any statement to the police in his presence. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor.
14. PW-9 Hari Chand deposed that no statement was made by Nirat Singh to the police on 9.6.2004 in his presence. He was also declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor.
15. PW-10 Nainu Ram deposed that on 1.6.2004 at about 9/10 PM, Headmaster Jagjit Singh called him to his residence. He found Chet Ram injured there who was unconscious. Headmaster ordered him to lock the quarter of PW- 2 Chet Ram.
16. PW-11 HC Yoginder Pal deposed that accused Davinder produced currency notes amounting to Rs. 20,708/-. He deposited the said money in the Malkhana of Police Station, Banjar.
17. PW-12 Pankaj Kumar deposed that he never visited Police Post Sanij. No accused was produced in his presence in the Police Post Sainj during morning hours on 13.5.2005 nor any cash was produced by the accused in the police post. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor.
18. PW-13 Moti Ram Palsra deposed that accused Davinder was not known to him. He was not produced in the Police Post Sainj on 13.5.2005 nor had he produced any money to the Police. He was also declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor.
19. PW-16 Achhar Singh deposed that he was running a shop in the market at Sainj. On 6.6.2004, Lila Dhar, ex-Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Shangar came to him. He was having cash with him and it was lying in the bag. He told him that money was to be given by him to the police. He accompanied him to the police post Sainj. He took out the money from the bag in the Police Post and the case of Rs. 54,440/- was handed over by him to the ASI incharge at that time. Other police officials were also present at that time. Nirat Singh was not known to him. He did not know that the accused in the Court was Nirat Singh. Nirat Singh did not hand over currency notes worth Rs. 54,440/- to the police in this presence. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor.
20. PW-17 ASI Biri Singh deposed that at around 12.30 midnight he recorded statement under Section 154 CrPC of Chet Ram which is Ext. PW-2/B. It was sent to the Police Station, Banjar for registration of case. Both the accused surrendered in the Police Post in the presence of Lila Dhar on 6.6.2004. Accused Nirat Singh produced currency notes of Rs. 54,440/- before him in the presence of Lila Dhar and Achhar Singh. These were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-6/B On 9.6.2004, he, accompanied by accused and Constable Kuldip left for village Gharali, where accused Nirat had concealed the money bag. The accused made disclosure statement Ext. PW-8/A in the presence of Tek Singh and Hari Chand. In the jungle bag was taken out by him concealed beneath a stone where it was hidden by him. It was 6 PM by that time. Thereafter, he came back to his house.
21. DW-1 Sarnu was not produced by the prosecution but he was cited as defence witness by the accused. DW-1 Sarnu has given a new dimension to the case by deposing that PW-2 Chet Ram came to his house and told him that he had fallen and he should accompany him to the school where he was working. He went to the school along with Chet Ram
22. Case of the prosecution, precisely, is that PW-2 Chet Ram has taken out money from the PNB. Money was to be disbursed towards salary. PW-2 Chet Ram has taken this money to his house. He went to his house. In the meantime, accused came on the spot and covered his face, gave beatings and pushed him down the bushes. He regained conscious and went to the house of Headmaster where PW-3 Jagjit Singh was also present. PW-2 Chet Ram when appeared in the Court deposed that he has seen the accused near his house who overpowered him and after inflicting injuries on his person, have decamped with the money. However, in Ext. PW-2/B, names of accused have not been mentioned. If he knew all the accused, their names should have been specifically mentioned in Ext. PW-2/B. Reason given by him that he was under fear, can not be believed. PW-2 Chet Ram deposed that he was pushed into the bushes. He regained conscious after some time and went to the house of Sarnu. House of Sarnu from the house of complainant was at a distance of about � kms. He should have gone to his house to see whether cash was intact instead of going to the house of Sarnu.
23. PW-1 Dr. V.P. Negi has proved MLC Ext. PW-1/B. According to him, injuries especially injuries No. 1 to 3 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. However, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that all the four injuries mentioned in Ext. PW-1/B were simple. He also admitted that as per MLC, age of injury was more than 6 hours. He opined the nature of injury as grievous because injuries No.1 to 3 were on vital part of body i.e. scalp. He was re-examined and he stated that injury No. 2 singularly was sufficient to cause death of injured Chet Ram. In case injuries were grievous, he should have sent PW-2 Chet Ram for x-ray examination including of the skull. Injuries were superficial in nature. He should have explained categorically how the simple injuries could have caused death of Chet Ram.
24. Case of the prosecution is also that Nirat Singh produced a sum of Rs. 54,440/- before the police in the presence of Lila Dhar and Achhar singh. These witnesses have denied that the money was produced before the Police in their presence. Witnesses of recovery of bag at the instance of Nirat Singh have also disowned their statements and were declared hostile.
25. Now, so far as recovery of Rs. 20,708/- is concerned, both the witnesses of recovery did not support the case of the prosecution. They were also declared hostile, as noticed herein above. Statement of Chet Ram was recorded under Section 154 CrPC vide Ext. PW-2/B when he was in the company of Headmaster. Had there been any threat, he would have disclosed about the same to the persons present on the spot. Rather, PW-2, Chet Ram has not seen the accused who had given beatings to him. Thus, the accused could not be connected with the commission of crime. There is no occasion for us to interfere with the sufficiently reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court.
26. In view of the discussion and analysis made herein above, the appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds of accused are discharged.
27. All pending applications are also disposed of.
