Decided on October 16,2020

HARI DUTT Appellant
STATE OF H. P. Respondents


Sureshwar Thakur, J. - (1.)The instant appeal, stands directed, by the convict, against, the, verdict, of, his conviction, as rendered by the Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Shimla, upon, Session Trial No. 1- S/7 of 2015, vis ?-vis, a charge drawn under Section 307, of, the Indian Penal Code. He also, becomes aggrieved, from, the consequent therewith imposition(s), upon him, of, sentence(s), of, imprisonment, extending upto a term, of, 5 years, and, besides from his becoming sentenced, to, also pay fine, of, Rs. 20,000/-, in default whereof, he became sentenced, to, undergo simple imprisonment, for, a further term, of, two months.
(2.)The genesis, of, the prosecution case, is, embodied in Ext. PW19/A, exhibit whereof, is, a complaint, made by the victim, under Section 154 Cr. P.C., (a) wherein, the victim echoes, vis ?-vis, hers' rendering service(s), as a Senior Assistant, in the Establishment Branch, of, the H.P. University (b) and, that on 14.8.2014, at about 10:20 a.m., when she was present at the dispensary, of, the H.P. University, for hers' making payment, to one Anil Kumar, (c) and after hers' making payment, to, the afore Anil Kumar, and, upon hers' exiting the gate, of, afore dispensary, hence thereat the accused being present, and, his pulling her from her arm, (d) and, also his proceeding to abuse her, (e) whereupon, she narrates, that, her remonstrance(s) thereto, (f) rather infuriating Hari Dutt, (g) and, whereafter his retrieving a knife from his pocket, and, inflicting knife blows, upon her chest, stomach and arms. She continues to narrate therein qua blood copiously oozing, from, the injuries, meted upon her person, and also echoes, vis ?-vis, her shrieks and cries, inviting, the, presence thereat, of, the persons residing in the vicinity, of, the site of occurrence. In pursuance, of, the afore made statement, in writing, a formal FIR, Ext. PW13/B, became registered, at Police Station (West), Shimla.
(3.)The site, of, occurrence, is, embodied in site plan, borne in Ext. PW20/A. While stepping into the witness box, as PW-19, she in her examination-in-chief, made echoing(s), hence bearing, the, completest concurrence, with, the afore made previous statement, before the Investigating Officer concerned, statement whereof, is, embodied in Ext. PW1/A. Even, during the course, of, her examination-in-chief, knife Ext. P-6, as became recovered through recovery memo, borne in Ext. PW16/C, after becoming retrieved, from, a sealed cloth parcel, became shown to her, (i) and, she identified, it, to be weapon, with the user whereof, the accused, hence stabbed her chest, stomach, and, her arms. She faced the ordeal, of, an exacting cross-examination, by the learned defence counsel, and, during course thereof, though suggestion(s) became meted to her, rather for eroding the efficacy, of, her afore testification, made with completest corroboration, with, her previous statement, recorded in writing, by the Investigating Officer concerned. Nonetheless, she meted completest denial(s), to all the apposite suggestion(s). Consequently, her testification, rendered on oath, before the learned trial Court, when becomes free from any taint, of, any gross improvement(s), and, embellishment(s), vis ?-vis, her previously recorded statement in writing, statement whereof becomes, borne in Ext. PW1/A, nor when their occur(s) any rife or open contradiction(s), interse her testimony, embodied, in her examination-in-chief, and, the one contained, in her crossexamination, (ii) thereupon, her testification, vis ?-vis, occurrence, enjoins this Court to mete, the, completest evidentiary worth thereto. Even though, during the course, of, her, being subjected to cross-examination, by the learned defence counsel, she acquiesced, to, a suggestion, vis ?-vis, knife, Ext. P-6, being easily available in house(es), (iii) yet, therefrom, no leverage, can become drawn, by the learned defence counsel, qua the testification, of, the victim, as embodied, in, her examination-in-chief, (iv) and, whereat, she was shown knife Ext. P-6, after its becoming retrieved, from a sealed cloth parcel, borne in Ext. P-5, and, also hers' thereat, declaring it, to be the weapon, of, offence, hence used at the relevant time, by the accused, rather begetting any stain(s) (v) as rather existence(s), of, intact thereon(s) seal impression(s), precisely upon the sealed cloth parcel, Ext. P-5, wherefrom knife Ext. P-6, became retrieved, rather dispelling any making(s), of, any inferences, vis ?-vis, the apposite seals, occurring therein, in contemporaneity, vis ?-vis, production, of, Ext. P-5 in Court, hence becoming tampered. Conspicuously, accentuated momentum, vis ?-vis, the afore made inference, becomes garnered, from, observations, being made, by the learned trial Judge, hence during the course, of, production, of, the afore weapon, of, offence, and, their making bespeaking(s), vis ?-vis, all the seal(s), embossed thereon(s), being intact. The apt sequitur thereof(s), are, qua the learned counsel, for the appellant, becoming disabled, to, make any valid argument(s), before this Court, that the weapon, of, offence, as became produced, and, also shown to the victim, during, the course, of, her examination-in-chief, being not related, to recovery(ies) thereof, as became made, through, valid recovery memo, drawn, in Ext. PW15/A.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.