SECOND/SUPPLEMENTARY 161 STATEMENT RECORDED ON THE SAME DAY. HENCE VARIANCE BETWEEN TWO VERSIONS NOT FATAL
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 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 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.
MINOR CONTRADICTIONS AFTER FOUR YEARS ARE NORMAL
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 the parties was even admitted by the accused in their statement, recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
FOUR DIFFERENT VERSIONS CAME FROM DEFENCE
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 cannot result in acquitting the accused. DW-1 was not an eye witness, though claimed to be one.
CONFIRMS THE REVERSAL OF ACQUITTAL.
PARTY: Gian Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh – Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2011 – May 18, 2023.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2010/37447/37447_2010_15_1501_44583_Judgement_18-May-2023.pdf
