State of Himachal Pradesh vs Vijay Kumar and Another

Rajiv Sharma, J.—State has come in appeal against the judgment dated 25.11.2000 rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala whereby the Respondents, who were charged with and tried for offences punishable, under Sections 341, 326 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted.

Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that complainant Baldev Krishan was on his way to his house in Shamnagar of Dharamshala town. He was accosted by the Respondents, who were under the influence of liquor. Respondent No. 2 Shyam Singh caught hold of the complainant and Respondent No. 1 Vijay Kumar put his left ring finger in his mouth and by giving a tooth bite, he amputated the distal portion of his left ring finger. Complainant went to Police Station and lodged F.I.R. Ex. P.W. 2/B. The complainant was taken to hospital. He was medically examined by Dr. Arun Tanglikar (P.W. 3) and he referred him to Dr. R.K. Mahajan, who gave his opinion on the basis of X-ray of left ring finger of the complainant. The matter was investigated by the police and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

Prosecution examined number of witnesses to prove the charge against the Respondents. They were also examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They pleaded not guilty. The trial Court acquitted the Respondents on 25.11.2000. Hence, the present appeal.

Mr. R.K. Sharma has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the Respondent. According to him, learned trial Court has not correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution.

Mr. M.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate has supported the judgment dated 25.11.2000.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

P.W. 2 Baldev Krishan deposed that on 5.6.1996, he was accosted by the Respondents. They started quarrelling with him. The Respondents were drunk. Respondent Shyam Singh Thapa caught him from behind and Respondent Vijay Kumar put his left ring finger in his mouth and gave a tooth bite resulting into amputation of distal portion of the finger. He was taken to Hospital on a motorcycle. He lodged report with the police. The matter was investigated by the police and the Investigating Officer recovered the amputated part of finger Ex. P-1 from the spot.

P.W. 3 Dr. Arun Tanglikar clinically examined the complainant and he referred him to Dr. R.K. Mahajan, Radiologist for his opinion after X-ray examination.

P.W. 5 Narinder Kumar is the only independent witness. According to him, no occurrence took place in his presence and the police took his signatures on a paper. He was declared hostile by the prosecution.

According to P.W. 6 Shalinder Kumar, he alongwith 2-3 persons was going to his house and when they reached in Civil Bazaar, they saw that Respondents were quarrelling with complainant. Respondent Vijay Kumar chewed distal portion of the finger of the complainant. According to him, he rescued the complainant from the Respondents. He further deposed that he went with the police to the spot and the police recovered the amputated part of finger, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. P.W. 2/A. But in his cross-examination, he has deposed that his statement was recorded by the police on the next day at 12.00 noon at Police Station and he did not visit the spot from the Police Station.

P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 are witnesses of recovery memo Ex. P.W. 2/A. P.W. 5 did not support the prosecution story. P.W. 6 in his cross-examination, as discussed hereinabove, has deposed that he went to the Police Station next day only at 12.00 noon and his signatures were taken only at the Police Station. He did not visit the spot. Thus, the prosecution could not prove that the amputated part of the finger was recovered on 6.6.1996 on the spot. Moreover, the name of P.W. 6 Shalinder Kumar was not mentioned in F.I.R. Ex. P.W. 2/B. According to P.W. 3 Dr. Arun Tangligkar, left little ring finger of the complainant was not possible to be amputated by a human bite. P.W. 5 Narinder Kumar did not support the prosecution version at all. He deposed that no occurrence took place in his presence. The prosecution story is full of contradictions and exaggerations and the same cannot be relied upon.

Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds of the Respondent stand discharged.