BIR SINGH versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 335 · Decided: 25-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

BIR SINGH 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
APRIL 25, 2006 
(S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 307-Grievous injuries sustained by 
policeman-At police out-post-On account of multiple blows given by a local 
villager with 'khukhri', a sharp weapon-Conviction/or attempt to murder by C 
Courts below-Correctness of-Held, correct since statement of victim was 
corroborated in material particulars by two witnesses as well as medical 
evidence-Besides, the accused did not examine any defence witness and did 
not explain his presence at the police out-post-Investigating Officer too had 
been immediately informed about the occurrence-Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973-Sections 107 rlw 151-Criminal Trial-Testimony of witness-Medical D 
evidence. 
Appellant came to a police out-post at about 8:30 p.m. and asked 
the police personnel to accompany him to his village as a faction fight had 
been going on threat. But PWI, the Assistant Sub-Inspector, declined to.t 
visit the village at time, though he gave assurance that a police party would E 
be sent the next day. On his advise, Appellant too stayed back at the police 
post building. 
Later during the night, while PWI was going for meals, Appellant 
gave a blow on his face with a 'khukhri' followed by another blow resulting F 
in a cut injury on his elbow. PWI tried to snatch the 'khukhri' but 
sustained hand injuries. Hearing the noise, four police constables including 
PW4 and PWS arrived at the spot and overpowered the Appellant. 
The prosecution, in support of its case, besides examining PWI, the 
injured, examined the eye-witnesses to the occurrence, viz., PW4 and PWS. G 
Sessions Judge convicted Appellant under Section 307, IPC for attempt 
to murder and sentenced him to undergo 7 years' Rigorous Imprisonment. 
On appeal, High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence 
to s years. 
335 
H 
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the evidences of PWs 
1, 4 and 5 were insufficient to convict Appellant; that PWl 1, an 
independent witness, did not support the prosecution case; that despite 
other independent witnesses being available they were not examined nor 
cited as prosecution witness; that the prosecution did not explain delayed 
B examination of PW 1 and that the genesis of the occurrence, namely, that 
there had been a free fight at the village of the appellant having not been 
proved, the prosecution case must be held to have failed to prove the guilt 
of the appellant. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. PW-1 sustained grievous injuries. He stated in great 
details as to how he had suffered injuries. The injuries suffered by him 
stand corroborated by medical evidence. He categorically stated that he 
could not even recognize the accused at the time of incident, but, according 
to him, he came to know later on that two groups which were reported 
D by the accused to have been fighting, had approached him earlier in his 
capacity as in-charge of police force with a complaint of apprehension of 
breach of peace and on that basis, a proceeding under Sec~ions 107/151, 
CrPC was initiated by him. [340-Ff 
1.2. The statement of PWl had been corroborated in material 
E particulars by PW4 and PWS. No material has been shown which would 
throw any shadow of doubt to disbelieve the statements of the said 
witnesses. [341-Bf 
2. The appellant has not examined any defence witness. In fact, he 
has not entered into any particular defence. Why he came to the police 
F post was not explained by him. He interestingly gave a suggestion to the 
prosecution witnesses that some unknown persons had assaulted PWl 
when he went across the road and meanwhile he was passing along that 
road, he was arrested on suspicion, which clearly establishes his presence 
at the incident spot. [340-E; 341-E[ 
G 
3.1. The Investigating Officer was informed immediately about the 
occurrence on the basis whereof a First Information Report was lodged. 
He had to walk all the· way in difficult terrain from the district 
headquarters to the place of occurrence and thus, he could reach there 
only in the night of 9th May, 1988. He categorically stated that he could 
H not take any statement from the injured before 21st May, 1988 as he was 
--! _, 
BIR SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [SINHA, J.] 
337 
not in a position to give the same, although he was talking. (340-H; 341-A] A 
3.2. The in

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.