Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10258 (HP)

STATE v. HANS RAJ

CR.A/349/2010 · 2026-05-30

Ranjan Sharma, Vivek Singh Thakur

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:HHC:20645-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010. Reserved on: 07.03.2026. Date of decision: 30.05.2026 Uploaded on : 30.05.2026 State of Himachal Pradesh ...Appellant. Versus Hans Raj and another …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes. For the Appellant. Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr. Dhiraj Thakur, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge State has preferred this appeal against acquittal of respondents, vide judgment dated 31.12.2009, passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 8/2009, titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Hans Raj and another in case FIR No. 182/2008, dated 09.10.2008, registered under Section 302, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code in Police Station Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 2. The FIR No. 182/2008 (Ext. PW10/B) was registered on the basis of statement of Gopal Singh (PW-14), made under Section 154, Cr.P.C. (Ext. PW10/A) to PW-28 SI Dharam Singh on the spot on 09.10.2008 at about 12:30 P.M., wherein he had stated that on 08.10.2008, he (PW-14), being driver of Jeep bearing registration No. HP32-2441 along with his companions Chaman Lal (PW-15), Karam Singh (not examined) and deceased Hem Raj, at about 9:00 P.M. was going to Rohanda Temple to attend Jagran. At about 9:30 P.M., when they reached at Kulashi, respondents Hans Raj and Ramesh Kumar came on red coloured motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-33-A-3846, who had consumed little liquor, and stopped after reaching near the Jeep and started abusing Gopal Singh (PW-14). In the meanwhile, Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal came behind them, i.e., Rohanda side on a without number yellow coloured motorcycle and he (PW-14) was well acquainted with all of them. When they were asked not to abuse, Hans Raj and Ramesh Kumar started beating him, i.e., Gopal Singh (PW-14) with fists and leg blows and by that time his companions, Chaman Lal (PW-15), Karam Singh and Hem Raj also came out of the Jeep and PW- 14 Gopal Singh also came out of his driving seat, thereupon all four persons (motorcyclists) attacked all of them and Hans Raj took out knife 3 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 from his pocket and stabbed in the chest of Hem Raj. Hem Raj fell down on the road and his clothes were soaked with blood oozing out from his chest. Ramesh Kumar pushed Gopal Singh (PW-14) below the road and when he reached back on the road, Hans Raj, Ramesh Kumar, Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal fled from the spot on their motorcycles. At the time of quarrel, headlights of Jeep were on and, therefore, he (PW-14) identified all four quarreling assailants. He (PW-14) immediately reported the incident to Police Station through his phone and Chaman Lal and Karam Singh boarded injured Hem Raj in the Jeep to take him to Rohanda for his treatment. On the way, Karam Singh pointed out that Hem Raj had died, whereupon he (PW-14) drove back the vehicle to the spot, where quarrel had taken place and waited for police. In this quarrel, PW-14 Gopal Singh, Karam Singh and Chaman Lal were also sustained injuries. 3. According to prosecution case, GD entry No. 2(A), dated 09.10.2008 (Ext. PW17/A) was recorded at 12:15 A.M. (00:15 hours) in Police Station Gohar, on the basis of telephonic information received from PW-14 Gopal Singh, S/O Sh. Sohan Singh, whereby it was informed that Hem Raj, S/O Sh. Beli Ram has been murdered near Badu by companions of Vicky, whereupon after recording entry in Daily Diary 4 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 Report, PW-28 SI/SHO Dharam Singh along with ASI Shakti Chand (PW- 10), HC Khem Chand (PW-7), HHC Ghanshayam (PW-8), HHG Murari Lal and HHG Chet Ram left the Police Station in official vehicle driven by driver constable Virender Kumar (PW-12) to the spot along with constable Chuni Lal on motorcycle bearing registration No. HP33-8264. 4. Police party reached on the spot at 1:15 A.M. After reaching the spot, statement of Gopal Singh (Ext. PW10/A) under Section 154, Cr.P.C. was recorded and ruqua was sent to Police Station through constable Murari Lal for registration of FIR, on the basis of which FIR (Ext. PW10/B) was registered in Police Station Gohar by PW-10 ASI Shakti Chand. Thereafter, PW-28 SI Dharam Singh, Investigating Officer, at the instance of complainant Gopal Singh (PW-14) prepared the spot map (Ext. PW20/A) and took photographs Ext. PW26/A-1 to Ext. PW26/A-7 and Ext. D1. Blood stained soil as well as stones and four buttons lying on the spot were taken in possession, vide recovery memo Ext. PW1/A by preserving soil as Ext. P1, stones as Ext. P2 and buttons as Ext. P3. The seizure memo (Ext. PW1/A) was signed by PW-1 Uttam Chand and PW-2 Sanjay Kumar. Investigating Officer also took possession of motorcycle Karizma along with its documents and DL vide 5 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 memo Ext. PW8/A on that day (09.10.2008) in presence of witnesses, PW-8 HHC Ghanshayam and Karam Singh. 5. After preparing the inquest report and filling up form 25:35 (Ext. PW28/B) in presence of witnesses Tek Chand and Uttam Chand, dead body was sent through HC Krishan Chand for conducting postmortem to Civil Hospital Sunder Nagar, vide application (Ext. PW3/A) and, thereafter, postmortem report (Ext. PW3/B) was obtained. After moving application, Medico Legal Certificates (MLCs) of PW-14 Gopal (Ext. PW4/B) and PW-15 Chaman Lal (Ext. PW4/C), after their medical examination were obtained. Investigating Officer also recorded statements of witnesses Gopal Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Uttam Chand, Karam Singh, Chaman Lal, Khub Ram, Tek Chand and Constable Murari Lal under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 6. On 09.10.2008, Jeep bearing registration No. HP32-2441, in which dead body of Hem Raj was kept, was taken in possession along with documents vide memo (Ext. PW5/A) and was handed over on supurdari to PW-14 Gopal Singh, driver of the said vehicle, in presence of witnesses Khub Ram (PW-5) and HC Khem Chand (PW-7). 6 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 7. On 09.10.2008, after findings sufficient grounds against Hans Raj, Ramesh Kumar, Ankit Jamwal and Vineet @ Vicky, he arrested all four of them. 8. On 10.10.2008. Accused persons were produced before Judicial Magistrate, Sunder Nagar and they were remanded to police remand for five days by the Court. 9. It is further case of prosecution that on 11.10.2008, accused Hans Raj made a disclosure statement (Ext. PW10/D) regarding weapon of offence in presence of witness Kartar (not examined) and PW-10 ASI Shakti Chand and in furtherance thereto Hans Raj got recovered blood stained knife (Ext. P-4), in presence of witnesses Kartar (not examined), PW-10 ASI Shakti Chand and PW-11 Virender, which was taken in possession vide memo (Ext. PW10/F). Knife (Ext. P-4) was identified by PW-14 Gopal Singh as weapon of offence. Sketch of knife (Ext. PW10/J) was also prepared. 10. On the same day, i.e., 11.10.2008, respondent Ramesh Kumar made disclosure statement (Ext. PW10/E), about red coloured motorcycle, being used at the time of incident and pant (Ext. P-7) which he was wearing at the time of incident, in presence of witnesses Kartar (not examined) and PW-10 ASI Shakti Chand, and in furtherance thereto, 7 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 in presence of witnesses PW-11 Virender Kumar and PW-10 ASI Shakti Chand, pant was got recovered by Ramesh Kumar, which was taken in possession, vide memo (Ext. PW10/G). Red coloured motorcycle bearing registration No. HP33A-3846 was also got recovered by Ramesh Kumar, which was taken in possession vide memo (Ext. PW10/H) in presence of witnesses Kartar Singh (not examined) and PW-10 Shakti Chand and it was identified by Gopal Singh (PW-14). 11. On 11.10.2008, Sweater (Ext. P-10) and Shirt (Ext. P-11) of Hans Raj were taken in possession vide memo (Ext. PW12/A) from Hans Raj, which he was wearing at that time for noticing blood stains thereon in presence of witnesses Kartar Singh (not examined) and PW-12 Virender Kumar. 12. On 04.11.2008, PW-27 Manoj Kumar, owner of motorcycle Karizma produced documents of Yellow coloured motorcycle, i.e., Insurance (Ext. PW27/A) as well as Sale-Purchase Certificate (Ext. PW27/B), which were taken in possession by the Investigating Officer vide memo (Ext. PW27/A) in presence of witnesses Mukesh (not examined) and PW-23 Constable Roshan Lal. As per Manoj Kumar, he had given his ‘Applied For’ motorcycle for use to his friend Ankit Jamwal. 8 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 13. On 12.11.2008, Hem Singh, father of respondent Ramesh Kumar had produced Sale-Purchase Affidavit (Ext. PW7/B) with respect to motorcycle bearing registration No. HP33A-3846, being used by Ramesh Kumar on the day of incident. Copy of affidavit was taken in possession vide memo (Ext. PW7/A) in presence of PW-7 HC Khem Chand and PW-24 Ganga Ram. 14. PW-3 Dr. Vivek Moudgil after postmortem handed over two sealed parcels to the police, containing clothing of the deceased as well as jars containing parts of stomach, small intestine, liver, kidney, spleen along with sample of preservative and blood, containing seal ‘D’ thereon. These parcels were deposited by PW-28 SI Dharam Singh on the very same day with H.C. Inder Dev (PW-19), the then MHC of Police Station Gohar, who had entered it in Malkhana Register at Sr. No. 556. Extract of malkhana register is Ext. PW19/A. On the same day, SI/SHO Dharam Singh deposited articles of Jamatalashi with MHC Inder Dev (PW-19), which was also entered in malkhana register at Sr. No. 557. Extract of malkhana register is Ext. PW19/B. 15. On 11.10.2008, MHC Inder Dev was on leave and in his absence, PW-18 HC Krishan Lal was holding the charge of MHC. On that day, PW-28 Dharam Singh, Investigating Officer had deposited three 9 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 parcels with the then MHC PW-18 HC Krishan Lal, which were entered by MHC in malkhana Register at Sr. No. 560. Extract of malkhana register is Ext. PW18/A. 16. On 15.10.2008, PW-18 HC Krishan Lal had forwarded all five parcels, i.e., two received by PW-19 HC Inder Dev and three received by him, to FSL Junga through Constable Yashwant Singh (PW-16), vide RC No. 96/2008, who after depositing the same in the State FSL, handed over receipt to MHC PW-18 HC Krishan Lal, on his return. 17. As per prosecution case, on 09.10.2008, SI/SHO Dharam Singh (PW-28) had sent the dead body of Hem Raj for postmortem through PW-8 HHC Ghanshayam. The Medical Officer of CHC Sunder Nagar had handed over to him six parcels sealed with seal impression ‘A’ and docket M.O. Sunder Nagar sealed with seal ‘A’ at three places. According to PW-8 HHC Ghanshyam, he had handed over all these parcels to MHC Krishan Lal and handed over the postmortem report to SHO. 18. According to Investigating Officer, PW-14 Gopal Singh on 10.10.2008 had given his written application (Ext. PW14/A) stating therein that assailants were only two, i.e., Hans Raj and Ramesh Kumar, who came on the spot on red coloured motorcycle and only those two persons 10 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 had quarrelled with them and Hans Raj had stabbed in the chest of Hem Raj in his presence and Ramesh Kumar had thrown him by pushing down the road and assailants had fled from the spot. Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal, who were riding yellow coloured motorcycle, were standing near them and they had saved them (victims) from the clutches of Hans Raj and Ramesh Kumar and later on, vehicle (Jeep) bearing registration No. HP32-1641, driven by Netar Singh (PW-22), came on the spot and 2-3 boys alighted from the said vehicle and all of them as well as Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal helped them to lift the injured Hem Raj for putting him in rear body of the jeep and, thereafter, they started for Rohanda for treatment of deceased, whereas Vineet @ Vicky, Ankit Jamwal and Netar Singh left the spot on their bike and jeep respectively. In this application, it was also stated that he (Gopal Singh) had fully verified from his companions Karam Singh and Chaman Lal that the persons quarreled with them and beaten them were only Hans Raj and Ramesh Kumar and Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal did not quarrel with them, rather they saved them from Hans Raj and Ramesh Kumar. Regarding this, supplementary statement of complainant was recorded and Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal were discharged by the Investigating Officer under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. 11 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 19. During investigation, spot tatima (Ext. PW20/B) and Jamabandi (Ext. PW20/C) were obtained from Patwari Parkash Chand (PW-20), after submitting application (Ext. PW20/B) to the Patwari. 20. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court on 06.01.2009 against two respondents by PW-28 SI/SHO Dharam Singh. 21. Before submitting challan in the Court, though FSL report (Ext. PW3/C) dated 28.04.2009 with respect to chemical examination of part of stomach, small intestines, liver, spleen and kidney was available in October, 2008 and report with respect to buttons, recovered from the spot, was also available, however, chemical analysis report dated 30.05.2009 with respect to blood stained soil, stones and pant of respondent Ramesh Kumar, knife (weapon of offence), sweater and shirt of Hans Raj was still awaited, therefore, final opinion of Medical Officer was also not available. 22. After receiving the aforesaid reports dated 28.04.2009 and 30.05.2009, these reports were placed before Medical Officer, who had conducted the postmortem, and his opinion (Ext. PW3/D) was obtained on 06.06.2009, in which he had opined that person died due to stab injury, leading to incised injury of left lung, resulting in hemorrhagic shock 12 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 and finally death and the injury was caused by sharp pointed weapon and probable time between injury and death was within few minutes and between death and postmortem 18-36 hours. It is apt to notice that postmortem was conducted on 09.10.2008 at 3:30 P.M. 23. Thereafter, supplementary challan for placing on record postmortem report along with opinion of the Medical Officer as well as reports of chemical analysis received from FSL was put in the Court on 09.06.2009. 24. The challan was committed by the Magistrate to the Sessions Court, which was assigned to the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi. On 21.12.2009, after taking into consideration prima facie material against the respondents, charge against them was framed under Section 302, read with Section 34 of IPC. For pleading not guilty, respondents were subjected to trial. 25. Prosecution has examined 28 witnesses to substantiate its case, whereas after recording statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., no evidence has been led by the respondents. 26. After taking into consideration entire material on record and evaluating and assessing the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Trial Court, has acquitted the respondents of the charge. 13 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 27. As per prosecution’s story, complainant-victim party was consisting of four members, one of them, i.e., Hem Raj has expired in the incident. Out of remaining three, Karam Singh has not been examined, whereas PW-14 Gopal Singh and PW-15 Chaman Lal have been examined as spot witnesses. 28. As per prosecution’s story, immediately after the incident PW-22 Netar Singh reached on the spot in his jeep bearing registration No. HP32-1641, which was hired by some students of Badu Engineering College to Rohanda Classic Hotel. They noticed injured Hem Raj lying on the road near Kulashi and they lifted him and put him in the jeep, being driven by PW-15 Gopal Singh to take him for treatment at Rohanda hospital. He as well as PW-21 Sushil Guleria, PW-25 Ankush Sharma and PW-13 Sunny Thakur, were cited as spot witnesses of the incident along with witnesses Sandeep Kumar, Sahil Patial, Pradeep Kumar and Ravi Kumar, however, they all were given up by the prosecution, being won over by the respondents and thus, not examined, whereas PW-21 Sushil Guleria, PW-22 Netar Singh, PW-25 Ankush Sharma and PW-13 Sunny Thakur were declared hostile on request of learned Public Prosecutor for resiling from their previous statements recorded by the Police in support of prosecution’s case. 14 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 29. FIR was registered on the basis of statement of PW-14 Gopal Singh, recorded under Section 154, Cr.P.C. (Ext. PW10/A), wherein he has alleged that they were abused and beaten by four assailants, i.e., respondents, Hans Raj and Ramesh Kumar as well as Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal. In his first telephonic information transmitted to the Police Station, he had stated that Hem Raj had been murdered by Vicky and his companions. 30. In his subsequent statement (Ext. PW14/A) and as per supplementary statement (Mark-Y), recorded on 10.10.2008, as stated by PW-28 Investigating Officer, PW-14 Gopal had alleged commission of offence by only two persons, i.e., respondents Hans Raj and Ramesh Kumar with further statement that Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal did not quarrel with them, rather they rescued them and helped to lift Hem Raj from the road to put him in the vehicle and their names were uttered by him in previous statement because of misunderstanding with further clarification that in case Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal would not have come forward to rescue them, then Hans Raj, like Hem Raj, would have killed them also. 31. In the deposition in the Court, PW-14 Gopal Singh has reiterated certain facts like in his earlier statement recorded under Section 15 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 154, Cr.P.C. (Ext. PW10/A) regarding the fact that they were going to attend Jagran in a temple at Rohanda and at about 9:30 P.M., when they reached Kulashi, a red coloured motorcycle with registration No. HP-33A- 3846 came from Rohanda side. Hans Raj and Ramesh Kumar were riders of aforesaid motorcycle, who were under influence of liquor and both came in front of the jeep, stopped their motorcycle and started abusing. After sometime, on ‘Applied For’ yellow coloured motorcycle, Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal came on the spot and he (PW-14 Gopal Singh) was knowing these two persons personally because they were studying in Badu College and were residing in quarter at Badu and both respondents, i.e., Hans Raj and Ramesh Kumar were friends of Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal and usually and frequently were visiting the quarters of Ankit and Vicky. When he (PW-14 Gopal Singh) asked the respondents not to abuse, they started beating him with fist blows. In the meanwhile, Hem Raj, Chaman Lal and Karam Singh came out of the jeep. Both the respondents dragged the complainant out from the vehicle and started beating him mercilessly. Chaman Lal, Karam Singh and Hem Raj rescued him from the clutches of respondents. Respondent Ramesh Kumar caught hold of Hem Raj from his neck and respondent Hans Raj gave him blow of knife on the chest, resultantly Hem Raj fell down on the 16 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 road and excessive blood started oozing out from the chest and his clothes were strained with blood. Respondent Ramesh Kumar pushed him (PW-14 Gopal Singh) and resultantly he (PW-14 Gopal Singh) fell down below the road and when he came back on the road, respondent Hans Raj and Ramesh Chand fled towards Badu on their motorcycle. According to deposition of this witness in the Court, Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal stayed at the spot for short time and helped them (victim party) in lifting the deceased to lay down him in the vehicle and, thereafter, both of them went away towards Badu on their motorcycle. This witness (PW-14 Gopal Singh) has further stated that when both respondents had been beating them, jeep was in start motion and its headlights were on. Immediately after the occurrence, this witness (PW- 14) informed the police of Gohar on mobile phone. Thereafter, he, along with his companions, was taking Hem Raj to hospital for medical aid, but when they reached at Latogali, Karam Singh sitting with injured in the rear portion (Dala) of the jeep, knocked body of the jeep, asking to stop it by saying that Hem Raj had died. Thereafter, this witness (PW-14) turned the vehicle to the spot where police came at about 12:30 A.M. on 09.10.2008. He (PW-14), PW-15 Chaman Lal and Karam Singh (not examined) also sustained injuries and according to this witness, there 17 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 was no cause for fighting and they were beaten by both the respondents, which resulted into death of Hem Raj, their companion. 32. Surprisingly, PW-14 in his examination-in-chief has also admitted that he had made statement (Ext. PW10/A) to the police on the spot and after admitting the same to be correct, he appended his signatures on the said statement. 33. He remained associated in the investigation and in his presence, blood stained soil (Ext. P-1), stones (Ext. P-2) and four buttons (Ext. P-3) were taken in possession and sealed in parcels vide memo Ext. PW1/A in presence of witnesses Uttam Chand (PW-1) and Sanjay Kumar (PW-2). All of them put their signatures on memos. He has also deposed regarding taking into possession of vehicle bearing registration No. HP32- 2441 and handing over the same to him on supurdari (Ext. PW5/A). 34. On 11.10.2008, PW-14 was summoned by the police in Police Station Gohar. He along with police, Virender and respondent Hans Raj, went to Nalsar to the house of Pankaj where Hans Raj led them to the second floor of the house in room No. 2, wherefrom he brought out knife (Ext. P-4), which was taken in possession and sealed in parcel at the spot, vide recovery memo (Ext. PW10/F), and PW-14 put his signatures thereon. This witness also witnessed seizure of red coloured 18 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-33A-3846 vide memo (Ext. PW10/H) from respondent Ramesh Kumar. He has also witnessed seizure of Sweater (Ext. P-10) and Shirt (Ext. P-11) of respondent Hans Raj vide memo (Ext. PW12/A) in a sealed parcel (Ext. P-9), which were worn by respondent Hans Raj at the time of occurrence. He has also put his signatures on Ext. PW12/A. He has also endorsed his medical examination and report thereof in MLC (Ext. PW4/B), whereupon he has identified his signatures. 35. In first information transmitted to Police Station as well as in statement recorded under Section 154, Cr.P.C. (Ext. PW10/A), PW-14 Gopal Singh has specifically alleged about commission of offence, i.e., murder of deceased Hem Raj by Vicky and his friends in Ext. PW17/A and naming all of four persons in his statement under Section 154, Cr.P.C., which was sent as ruqua, on the basis of which FIR (Ext. PW10/B) was registered. However, in his subsequent statement (Ext. PW14/A), he has taken u-turn with respect to allegations levelled against Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal with change of stance that both of them did not quarrel with them or beat them, but were helping the complainant party by rescuing them from clutches of the assailants. 19 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 36. In his statement made in writing in Ext. PW14/A, this witness has stated that at the time of making statement on 09.10.2008, he was perplexed and there was large gathering on the spot under whose pressure and due to misunderstanding, he included names of Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal in report, whereas there were only two assailants, i.e., Hans Raj and Ramesh Kumar and Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal did not do any wrong, but they helped them on the spot. Further that he had also discussed in detail with his companions Krishan Lal and Chaman Lal about the incident and they were fully satisfied that persons quarreled with them and beaten them were only Hans Raj and Ramesh Kumar, whereas Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal did not quarrel with them, rather they rescued the victim party from the clutches of respondents. 37. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that the statement made by him (Ext. PW10/A) to the police was correct and was made in presence of Chaman Lal and Karam Singh and he had signed thereon after reading it and admitting it to be true. This discrepancy is irreconcilable. Either Ext. PW10/A is correct or Ext. PW14/A is correct, whereas deposition of spot witnesses in the Court is leading nowhere as in examination-in-chief in contrast with statement made in the FIR, 20 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 instead of four assailants, only two persons have been named as assailants. 38. It is apt to notice that all four persons were named in the statement recorded under Section 154, Cr.P.C. (Ext. PW10/A), wherein it has been stated that complainant party was attacked by four persons, i.e., Hans Raj, Ramesh Kumar, Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal. Suddenly, on 10.10.2008, complainant stated that at the time of recording the statement by the police, he was perplexed and he had mentioned names of Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal due to misunderstanding and under pressure of large number of people gathered on the spot. In his cross- examination, this witness (PW-14) has stated that matter was discussed by the Police throughout the night till sunrise and, thereafter, police started its investigation. He has further stated that there was no problem of law and order after arrival of Police till morning and no extra force was summoned from the Police Station by SHO Dharam Singh after his arrival at 13:30 hours (1:30 A.M.) on 09.10.2008. It has also come in deposition that statement under Section 154, Cr.P.C. was recorded after discussing the issue throughout the night regarding death of the deceased. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that being perplexed and under pressure of public, complainant named Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal in FIR, in 21 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 his statement recorded under Section 154, Cr.P.C. It is apt to record that at the time of informing the police through his mobile phone immediately after the incident, there was no pressure upon this witness, rather it has come on record in statement of PW-14 itself that all four persons, Hans Raj, Ramesh Kumar, Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal were well known to this witness as this witness was well acquainted with Ankit and Vicky @ Vineet and he had noticed the other two, i.e., Hans Raj and Ramesh Kumar visiting there, when PW-14 had already met the assailant party, there is no possibility of naming two persons as assailants, who according to prosecution, were helping the respondents. 39. PW-14 has also admitted that firstly his statement was recorded and thereafter, statements of Chaman Lal and Karam Singh were recorded in his presence and, thereafter, ruqua was sent to Police Station. 40. PW-14 has further stated that before occurrence, he was not knowing Hans Raj and Ramesh, nor they were personally known to him. Further, that victim party assembled together at 8:30 P.M. on 08.10.2008 and all were in senses and had not consumed liquor and they never separated from each other even for a minute. Therefore, there was no possibility of consuming liquor by Hans Raj and Ramesh Kumar or 22 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 anybody else. According to him, he had not disclosed the name of assailants to the police when he made a call from the cell phone. He has admitted that he had stated to the police that Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal had fled from the spot after the occurrence on yellow motorcycle and it happened when this witness came to the road from down side. He has stated to the police in his statement (Ext. PW10/A) that he was dragged from the seat by the accused persons. The witness was confronted with statement (Ext. PW10/A), wherein it is not so recorded. He has stated to the police that all accused persons including Ankit Jamwal and Vicky had attacked the complainant party and Karam Singh and Chaman Lal were also present. He has also stated that all four persons had attacked them. He has stated that statement (Ext. PW14/A) was dictated by SHO to him on the spot, whereafter he appended his signatures on it. Thereafter, he has also stated that he voluntarily wrote it, but not at instance of anyone. He has also admitted that at that time, there were many people including police people present at the spot when he wrote Ext. PW14/A and the remaining two accused, who were present on the spot were not present in the Court with self statement that they did not beat them, however, they were attackers along with accused present in the Court. 23 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 41. This witness has stated that he did not smell any foul smell from mouth of Chaman Lal, Karam Singh and Hem Raj. According to him, he used to go to the quarter of Ankit Jamwal and Vineet @ Vicky and there he had seen Hans Raj and Ramesh Kumar on 08.10.2008 at about 5:00 P.M. At that time, PW-14 was not knowing that four persons who were standing on the road had no animus against him, Hem Raj, Chaman Lal and Karam Singh and none had snatched the knife (Ext. P-4), nor it was waived in the air and he did not make any supplementary statement to the police and he had made one statement, which was signed by him, i.e., Ext. PW10/A. This witness did not know the elder brother of Ankit Jamwal, who was prominent leader of political party. He has further stated that when Ankit Jamwal and Vineet @ Vicky were fighting, they were saying I am Ankit Jamwal again and again and second was saying I am Vineet time and again in loud voice, therefore, this witness came to know about their names. Otherwise, they were not acquainted to him by face or by name. 42. PW-15 Chaman Lal in his examination-in-chief has reiterated the story, as stated by Gopal Singh with some modification, that those were Hans Raj and Ramesh, who were assailants and Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal were helped them by stopping the assailants 24 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 from beating the complainant party and in the meanwhile, Ramesh Kumar caught hold deceased Hem Raj from his neck and Hans Raj gave knife blow to the chest of Hem Raj. Hem Raj fell down and PW-14 Gopal Singh was pushed by Ramesh Kumar down the road and Hans Raj also pushed this witness and he also fell down. Thereafter, both accused went away towards Badu side on their motorcycle and when they were being beaten by both of them, Ankit Jamwal and Vineet @ Vicky were also present on the spot and also present even after departure of the accused and after some time, a jeep bearing registration No. HP32-1641 being driven by PW-22 Netar Singh along with 4-5 persons travelling therein, came on the spot and all of them alighted from the jeep and they including Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal lifted Hem Raj and put him in the jeep of PW-14 Gopal Singh. He has stated that if Ankit etc. would not have rescued them from clutches of respondents, then respondents might have killed all of them, i.e., complainant party. He has admitted that assailants were two persons and complainant party was four persons and scuffle between them continued for 10-15 minutes and none of them, i.e., complainant party had consumed liquor. Thereafter, he has stated that he did not know whether deceased Hem Raj consumed liquor at that time or not. He has stated that PW-14 Gopal Singh had rolled down 20-30 feet 25 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 downward, but had expressed ignorance about the fact that Ramesh had also rolled down along with PW-14 Gopal Singh. He has stated that at the time of rolling down of Gopal Singh, Vineet @ Vikcy and Ankit Jamwal were also present on the spot and when Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal said to the accused that the victims were local persons, then assailants stopped beating them and it happened immediately on arrival of Ankit Jamwal and Vineet @ Vicky. He has stated that Ramesh Kumar did not caught hold of deceased Hem Raj from neck, nor he pushed his head down. 43. PW-15 Chaman Lal has also stated that Police came at 1- 1:30 A.M. in the night, all three victims were on the spot and till morning, they remained on the spot. Police inquired all of them about the incident and all three of them narrated entire episode to the police and statements of all of them were recorded by the police after sunrise. He has further stated that he had given statement to the police that Ramesh Kumar caught the neck of deceased Hem Raj and pushed him downward with further statement in cross-examination that Ramesh Kumar had not caught hold of deceased Hem Raj from the neck. He did not remember that all three of them had narrated about the occurrence to the police on arrival uptil morning and they had not told the police that Ramesh Kumar 26 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 had caught hold of deceased Hem Raj from the neck and pushed him down and, thereafter, Hans Raj had given blow to Hem Raj. He has stated that Police had not inquired about Ankit Jamwal and Vineet @ Vicky from him later on. According to him, statements of Gopal Singh and Karam Singh were not recorded in his presence. He has stated that before stabbing, knife was waived in the air for 10-15 minutes during scuffle, but none of them was hit by respondent Hans Raj during the span ranging from 10-15 minutes. He has stated that on arrival of Netar Singh and his companions, Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal were also standing near the spot. He has also admitted that Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal had fled away prior to arrival of police on the spot. 44. PW-17 Constable Tej Raj is M.C. in Police Station Gohar and according to him, he had recorded rapat No. 2(A) (Ext. PW17/A) upon receiving telephonic information from Gopal Singh, which was recorded as per the version of Gopal Singh. He has denied that rapat was manipulated later on at the instance of SHO. Further, he has stated that he had not heard telephonic call. It was heard by SHO and at that time, this witness was sitting on his seat and rapat was written by him. 45. In first transmission of information of incident (Ext. PW17/A) to the police, PW-14 Gopal Singh had claimed Vicky and his companions 27 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 as assailants, who had killed deceased Hem Raj. After arrival of police at 1:30 A.M. on the spot till recording statement (Ext. PW10/A) at 12:30 P.M., they were with the police. It has been stated in the statements of Gopal Singh (Ext. PW10/A and Ext. PW14/A) that he was knowing all four assailants personally, though in deposition in the Court at one point of time, he has stated that he came to know about names of assailants Ankit Jamwal and Vineet @ Vicky, when they were shouted their names saying that I was Ankit Jamwal and I was Vineet and on the other side, he has stated that they were not knowing them personally. At the same time, he has stated that he had seen visiting Hans Raj and Ramesh Kumar to the quarters/place of residence of Ankit Jamwal and Vineet @ Vicky. 46. On the basis of statement Ext. PW10/A, four persons were arrested by the police, who were remanded in police custody for 5 days by the Magistrate, when they were produced before the Magistrate after arrest on 10.10.2008. 47. Suddenly, according to prosecution’s case on 10.10.2008, Gopal Singh submitted an application (Ext. PW14/A), stating therein that Ankit Jamwal and Vineet @ Vicky were not assailants, rather they were helping to save the complainant party. Their names were stated due to misunderstanding and under pressure of large gathering on the spot. 28 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 48. This written application was submitted by Gopal Singh on 10.10.2008, but according to PW-28 Investigating Officer, he did not disclose this application to the Court till 14.10.2008, nor he discussed about it with his superiors, including SDPO/DSP in-charge of the area. He, on his own, on the basis of supplementary statement of Gopal Singh recorded in terms of application (Ext. PW14/A), had discharged Ankit Jamwal and Vineet @ Vicky without producing them in the Court. 49. A suggestion has been put in defence to the Investigating Officer that Ankit Jamwal was younger brother of prominent leader of political party, but he expressed ignorance about it. 50. According to the prosecution, police party reached on the spot at 1:30 A.M. Dead body of deceased was lying on the spot and all three injured persons were present on the spot. What investigation and interrogation was done by the police party on the spot till sunrise and why recording of statement of PW-14 Gopal Singh was delayed till 12:30 P.M., is not clear. 51. With respect to timing of recording statement of Gopal Singh and other witness also, there is discrepancy, as according to witnesses their statements were recorded after sunrise at about 7:00 A.M. and thereafter, but it is case of the prosecution, as also mentioned in ruqua 29 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 that the statement of Gopal was recorded at about 12:30 P.M., after 11 hours on arrival of the police on the spot. What was being deliberated and discussed before recording the statement is not clear on record, and it creates doubt about veracity of the prosecution story. 52. The first stand of victims was that it was Vicky and his companions, who were assailants, but suddenly within 36 hours, the version of victims changed and it was alleged that Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal were helping the victims, and there were only two assailants, i.e., Hans Raj and Ramesh Kumar. 53. Ruqua was sent by PW-28 SI Dharam Singh through PW-6 Constable Murari Lal, whereas there is no evidence on record how at what time and for what purpose as well as with whom PW-6 Constable Murari Lal came on the spot. 54. In GD entry No. 2(A) (Ext. PW17/A), name of Constable Murari Lal did not find mention as a member of police party, leaving to the spot, rather one Home Guard Murari Lal, No. 6/4-35 has been shown as a member of police party visiting the spot, but ruqua from the spot was not sent through HG Murari Lal, but it has been claimed to have been sent through Constable Murari Lal No. 574. Presence of Constable Murari Lal on the spot is doubtful and, therefore, it also casts doubt on the 30 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 prosecution’s story, even about recording of statement of Gopal Singh at 12:30 P.M. and sending the same through ruqua to the Police Station. 55. In cross-examination, PW-6 Constable Murari Lal has stated that statement of Gopal Singh was not recorded by the Investigating Officer in his presence. He has stated that he had gone to the spot later on as situation had become worse on the spot, but he has stated that he had no knowledge who had directed him to go to the spot and who had accompanied him to the spot and what was his mode of travelling to visit the spot, which was situated 28 kilometers from the Police Station. He has deposed contrary to the statement of Gopal Singh, who has stated that there was no law and order problem on the spot, whereas PW-6 Murari Lal has stated that people had assembled at Badu and they were raising slogans on the spot and Badu is located at 1 kilometer distance from the place of occurrence. Though, PW-6 Murari Lal has stated that when he left the Police Station to the place of occurrence, MHC had recorded his departure in daily diary, but no such daily diary has been produced in the Court. PW-6 Constable Murari Lal has also stated that he had not gone through the contents of daily diary rapat about his departure. He has expressed his ignorance about the time when Dharam Singh etc. left the Police Station nor he remembered his time of leaving 31 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 the Police Station, but he has stated that he reached on the spot at 10:00 or 10:30 A.M. and he went back to Police Station with ruqua at 12:30 P.M. Further, that in his presence, Dharam Singh had not done investigation. He also did not remember the convenience through which he went from the Police Station to the spot. 56. According to PW-6 Murari Lal, he remained on the spot for about two hours and no investigation was done by PW-28 Investigating Officer during that time, whereas according to PW-28 SI Dharam Singh, he recorded the statements of witnesses and, thereafter, he prepared ruqua for registration of FIR after verifying the facts and recording statements of witnesses. It is also a mystery that if Dharam Singh did not conduct any investigation on the spot despite reaching there after 1:15 A.M., what was he doing till 12:30 P.M. 57. Dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem and postmortem was conducted at 3:30 P.M. Civil Hospital Sunder Nagar is at a considerable distance from the spot, therefore, if statement of PW-28 is believed, then before sending dead body for postmortem, form 25:35 (AB) and 25:39 were prepared on the spot and thereafter, it was sent for postmortem. In case statements of PW-14 Gopal Singh, PW-15 Chaman Lal and PW-28 ASI Dharam singh are believed, then the investigation 32 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 including recording of statements of witnesses as well as preparation of inquest report etc. was started after sunrise and if PW-6 Constable Murari Lal was on the spot, then he must have noticed all activities or if presence of Constable Murari Lal is accepted to be on the spot, then after 10:30 A.M. till 12:30 P.M., Investigating Officer was siting idle. Why he was waiting for recording statement of PW-14 Gopal Singh till 12:30 P.M. 58. There is another glaring fact attracting attention of the Court is that in departure report (Ext. PW17/A), ASI Shakti Chand (PW-10) is a member of police party, which left to the spot in supervision of SI/SHO PW-28 Dharam Singh. It has not come on record that when and under whose instructions, PW-10 ASI Shakti Chand left the spot. In absence of his departure from spot prior to sending ruqua, he accompanied PW-28 throughout the investigation. PW-28 SI Dharam Singh in his statement has stated that this witness remained with him throughout the investigation on the intervening night of 9th and 10th October, 2008. But PW-10 ASI Shakti Chand, who has been examined, has not uttered even a single word about his arrival on and departure from the spot along with PW-28 SI Dharam Singh during night on 9th, i.e., after receiving information in the Police Station, recorded vide DD entry (Ext. PW17/A), and not only that he has not stated about visiting the spot on 9th, he is 33 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 also completely silent about the investigation conducted by PW-28 after arriving on the spot. 59. According to PW-6, he reached in the Police Station at about 2-2:30 P.M. and he delivered the ruqua to MHC Gohar Police Station, on the basis of which FIR was registered, but PW-6 Constable Murari Lal has nowhere stated that FIR was registered by ASI Shakti Chand (PW-10), rather he has stated that it was registered by MHC and MHC had handed over him file after registration of FIR for handing over the same to PW-28 SI Dharam Singh and, accordingly, file was handed over to PW-28 at Chail-Chowk at about 7:00 P.M. 60. To the contrary to PW-6 Murari Lal, PW-10 ASI Shakti Chand has stated that it was he, who received ruqua in the Police Station through Constable Murari Lal for registration of FIR, whereupon on the basis of statement under Section 154, Cr.P.C. (Ext. PW10/A), he registered FIR (Ext. PW10/B), which bears his signatures, which was feeded in the computer and after registration of FIR, he made an endorsement (Ext. PW10/C) on ruqua (Ext. PW10/A) and handed over the file to PW-6 Constable Murari Lal for transmitting the same to PW-28 SI Dharam Singh. 34 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 61. Without referring any investigation or situation witnessed by him on the spot, on arrival on the spot and thereafter till he remained on the spot, after visiting the spot along with PW-28 SI Dharam Singh, PW- 10 Shakti Chand has stated that he remained associated with the investigation of the case and on 11.10.2008, during the course of investigation, he claimed witnessing disclosure statement (Ext. PW10/D) made by Hans Raj, (Ext. PW10/E) made by Ramesh Kumar, recovery of knife vide memo (Ext. PW10/F), recovery of pant of Ramesh Kumar vide memo (Ext. PW10/G), recovery of motorcycle by Ramesh Kumar vide memo (Ext. PW10/H), sketch of knife (Ext. PW10/J). 62. In cross-examination, he has expressed inability to disclose the time when PW-6 Murari Lal came with ruqua to the Police Station, even as to whether it was before noon or afternoon and also about the time when PW-6 Murari Lal left the Police Station along with case file. He has also expressed his inability to tell the time of alleged disclosure statements were made by Hans Raj and Ramesh Kumar, even as to whether before lunch or after lunch. According to him, these statements were made in the Police Station and firstly Hans Raj had made disclosure statement and, thereafter, Ramesh Kumar had made disclosure statement. According to him, Gopal was also present in the Police Station 35 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 and his signatures were also obtained on disclosure statements. He has expressed his inability to tell the time of recovery of knife at Nalsar. According to him, Gopal Singh was called by SHO on 11.10.2008, who was residing at a distance of about 25 kilometers from the Police Station. He has stated that top of knife was blood stained. According to him, knife was taken out from the pillow in his presence as well as other witnesses Kartar Singh (not examined) and PW-11 Virender Kumar. 63. PW-11 Virender Kumar has been examined as a witness to recovery of Knife and Pant of Ramesh Kumar vide memos (Ext. PW10/F and Ext. PW10/G). He has not supported the prosecution’s case. He has refused to identify the accused present in the Court. Though, he has admitted signatures on Ext. P8 and Ex. P9, Ext. PW10/F and Ext. P10/G, but with statement that he appended his signatures near the house of Pankaj, where police was sitting and police obtained his signatures on the exhibits. He was declared hostile and despite cross-examining in detail by the Public Prosecutor, nothing material could be elucidated in favour of prosecution. 64. Perusal of Ext. PW10/D, Ext. PW10/E, Ext. PW10/G and Ext. PW10/J did not find mention name of Gopal Singh as a witness to disclosure/recovery memos, much less his signatures thereon. Gopal 36 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 Singh has been mentioned as an identifier of knife in memo (Ext. PW10/F) and identifier of Shirt and Sweater of Hans Raj, taken in possession vide memo (Ext. PW12/A). 65. PW-10 ASI Shakti Chand has stated that he did not remember whether on 08.10.2008, he was in Police Station or not. He has stated that Constable Murari Lal (PW-6) had gone to the spot on the call of SHO/SI Dharam Singh (PW-28) and call was received in his presence, but he did not remember about any entry made in daily diary in this regard or departure of Murari Lal. According to him, Murari Lal had gone in the evening after receiving telephonic call of SI Dharam Singh. He has stated that Constable Murari Lal, who had gone in the evening after receiving call from SI Dharam Singh, did not tell him about the cause of departure in late hours nor this witness tried to know why he was proceeding in such late hours. He did not recollect time when Constable Murari Lal left and he did not recollect his arrival in the Police Station from the spot. He has expressed his inability to tell reason that why seal after sealing the recovered articles, used for sealing, was not handed over to independent witness, but only to this witness, i.e., PW-10 ASI Shakti Chand. It is noticeable that when PW-10 Shakti Chand was 37 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 accompanying I.O. PW-28, then how he witnessed the call received by Murari Lal and his departure from Police Station. 66. According to prosecution’s case, PW-21 Sushil Guleria, PW- 22 Netar Singh and PW-25 Ankush Sharma had witnessed the incident, but all of them have denied to have seen the incident. 67. PW-21 Sushil Guleria has even denied that they found a jeep standing on the road and Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal were also standing there along with 3-4 local persons and injured persons were lifted by them to put in the vehicle. He has admitted that he was travelling along with students in Mahindra Jeep, being driven by Netar Singh. He has admitted that Ankit Jamwal and Vineet @ Vicky were arrested by the police in this case. 68. Contrary to statement of PW-21, PW-22 Netar Singh, who was driving the Jeep bearing registration No. HP-32-1641 though has denied to have witnessed the incident, however, has stated that they had noticed yellow coloured bike standing on the road, Hem Raj lying on the road in injured condition, who was lifted by them for putting in the Jeep to take for treatment to Rohanda Hospital. His statement is contradictory to the statement of PW-21 Sushil Guleria. 38 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 69. PW-25 Ankush Sharma has also denied to have seen anything including the occurrence of the incident or noticing a person lying on the road in injured condition and one jeep and two bikes standing there. Therefore, these witnesses are of no help to the prosecution, rather they create doubt that their introduction as witnesses to the incident is in order to save real culprits and/or Ankit Jamwal and Vineet @ Vicky, who, both of them, have been stated to be accompanying the students of Badu Engineering College from Rohanda to Badu Engineering College after attending a function, as it has come in evidence that Ankit Jamwal and Vineet @ Vicky were also studying in same Engineering College. 70. According to PW-14 Gopal Singh and PW-15 Chaman Lal, none of the complainant party had consumed liquor and they were together since 5:00 P.M. and were going to attend Jagran in temple, but FSL report, on examination of part of stomach, small intestine, liver, spleen and kidney, depicts detection of ethyl alcohol in stomach, small intestine, liver, spleen and kidney and quantity of ethyl alcohol in blood was 76.21 mg%. According to witnesses, after 5:00 P.M., no liquor was consumed by the deceased, meaning thereby, if they are believed then definitely deceased consumed liquor prior to 5:00 P.M. 39 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 71. PW-3 Dr. Vivek Moudgil has deposed that with such quantity of alcohol in blood, as evident from FSL report (Ext. PW3/C), talks of person shall be incoherent and staggering and it shall have impact on higher mental function and it would be incorrect to suggest that deceased was not highly intoxicated. 72. PW-1 Uttam Chand and PW-2 Sanjay Kumar are witnesses to taking into possession of blood stained soil, stones and buttons. They are residents of a village situated about 8 kilometers from the place of occurrence and these articles were taken into possession in the morning at about 8:00 A.M., as stated by these witnesses, but they are not local residents of the area. They have admitted that they are cousins of deceased Hem Raj. Though, the evidence alleged to be collected in their presence is of no help to the prosecution, however, it depicts the nature and conduct of investigating agency with regard to fair investigation. 73. PW-28 SI Dharam Singh, Investigating Officer has stated that both the statements (Ext. PW10/A and Ext. PW14/A) are true, as none of the statements is incorrect. He has admitted that there is no reference regarding receipt of application (Ext. PW14/A) in daily diary register or not even in zimini/police diary. He has stated that knife, when recovered, was blood stained. 40 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 74. It is prosecution case that Knife recovered at the instance of Hans Raj and Pant of Ramesh Kumar as well as Sweater and Shirt of Hans Raj taken into possession by the police during investigation, were blood stained, but in chemical analysis report received from State FSL (Ext. PW28/K), human blood was found on blood stained soil and stones, which was inconclusive in respect of blood group. Human blood group ‘O’ was found in pants, alleged to be recovered from Ramesh Kumar and clothes of deceased Hem Raj. Blood found in the shirt of Hans Raj was insufficient for blood grouping, whereas no blood was found on Knife, Sweater of Hans Raj and Pants. It is categorical stand of the witnesses that knife was blood stained, but the said fact has been falsified from FSL report. It also apt to record here that according to PW-3 Dr. Vivek Moudgil stabbing injury found on the dead body of the deceased was possible with sharp pointed weapon. The sketch of the Knife depicts that it is not pointed knife, it is definitely a kitchen knife and nature of the stab injury found on the dead body is not matching with the knife, which has been alleged to be recovered as weapon of offence used for commission of offence but it is not relatable to the injury for its shape. It is true that conviction can be there even in absence of recovery of weapon of offence and, therefore, if there is reliable and convincing evidence on record 41 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 regarding commission of offence by the accused persons, conviction can be there, ignoring the non recovery of the weapon of offence. But in present case, there is no reliable and cogent evidence against the respondents, rather it appears that knife was planted to fill up the lacuna, but same is of no help to the prosecution for opinion of the Medical Officer as well as report received from FSL. Human blood found on the Shirt of Hem Raj is not relatable exclusively to the blood of the deceased, as blood grouping was not possible. 75. From the blood found on the clothes of deceased Hem Raj, it appears that his blood group was ‘O’ and, therefore, ‘O’ blood group found on the pants of Ramesh Kumar may creates suspicion about involvement of Ramesh Kumar in commission of offence. However, suspicion howsoever grave, cannot take place of conclusive proof. There is nothing on record to conclude that blood group of Ramesh was not ‘O’ or blood found on his pants was of deceased Hem Raj only and none else. Otherwise also, if it is considered that scuffle between complainant party and respondents along with two more, i.e., Ankit Jamwal and Vineet @ Vicky had taken place, for unreliable veracity of prosecution witnesses including the complainant (PW-14) and injured (PW-15), it is difficult to 42 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 hold respondents guilty only on the basis of such circumstantial evidence, which is not leading to any concrete conclusion. 76. PW-12 Constable Virender Kumar has been examined as a witness to production of Sweater and Shirt of Hans Raj (Ext. P10 & Ex. P11) vide memo (Ext. PW12/A), but in cross-examination, he failed to tell the exact time of preparation of Ext. PW12/A by saying that it was about 1-1:30 P.M. 77. Another eye witness Karam Singh has not been examined by the prosecution. PW-10 ASI Shakti Chand has been examined as witness, but his own deposition is doubtful and, therefore, statement of this witness is also of no help to the prosecution. He has also stated that he had not stated in his statement that Hans Raj had produced his Sweater and Shirt, which he was wearing on the day of incident. He has stated that it has been wrongly recorded by the Investigating Officer. He has categorically stated that Hans Raj was not wearing aforesaid Sweater and Shirt on that day. 78. PW-4 Dr. Pushap Raj Thakur has medically examined PW- 14 Gopal Singh, PW-15 Chaman Lal and issued their MLCs (Ext. PW4/B & Ext. PW4/C) indicating that there were injuries on their bodies, but for 43 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 unreliable version of injured witness, these MLCs are of no help to the prosecution’s case. 79. PW-7 HC Khem Chand is witness to the memos of taking into possession of vehicle of the complainant and handing over the same on supurdari, vide recovery memo (Ext. PW5/A), and taking into possession of motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-33A-3846, vide memo (Ext. PW7/A) and production of affidavits (Ext. PW7/B and Ext. PW7/C), but this witness is link witness and for unreliable evidence, on material facts, is also of no help to the prosecution. 80. PW-8 HHC Ghanshyam has stated that he and Karam Singh remained associated in investigation. Karam Singh has not been examined. He has witnessed taking in possession of yellow coloured motorcycle produced by Amit Kumar vide memo (Ext. PW8/A), but as the challan was not presented against Ankit Jamwal and Vineet @ Vicky, who were claimed to be using this motorcycle, therefore, this witness is of no help to the prosecution. 81. PW-8 HHC Ghanshyam had also submitted an application for conducting postmortem and on receipt of postmortem report as well as six parcels handed over by Medical Officer to him, which were handed over by him to MHC Krishan Chand and the postmortem report was 44 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 handed over to SHO. In this deposition, there is discrepancy, as Krishan Chand was never MHC of the Police Station, rather PW-19 Inder Dev was MHC on 9th October, 2008, when postmortem report was collected and six parcels were handed over by the Medical Officer to this witness and PW- 8 Krishan Lal was MHC on 11.10.2008, as on that day, PW-19 Inder Dev was on leave, but this witness has claimed handing over six parcels to same Krishan Lal and it is link evidence. This witness was also on the spot, but he has stated that he did not remember when statement of Gopal Singh (under Section 154, Cr.P.C.) was recorded. He has stated that he did not remember the important proceedings other than the statement under Section 154, Cr.P.C., which were conducted by the Investigating Officer on the spot, rather he has stated that he did not know what proceedings were conducted by Investigating Officer on the spot and he also did not remember whether Gopal Singh (PW-14), Chaman Lal (PW-15) and Karam Singh had appended their signatures on papers or not. According to him, he remained on the spot up to 11.30 A.M. on 09.10.2008. Thereafter, he went with the dead body to Sunder Nagar. He did not remember that Murari Lal was member of Police party or not. According to him, consequently Murari Lal had met him for the first time after he had gone to get the postmortem conducted of the dead body 45 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 of the deceased. He never met him on 09.10.2008 before his departure to the hospital on the same day. He has further stated that motorcycle was taken into possession after conducting postmortem examination and after receiving all the articles from the hospital. 82. PW-9 Lalit Singh has been examined to prove that after the incident two boys came to his house to inquire about Pankaj and Pankaj was not present in the house, and they intended to sleep in the house and he told them to go to the upper storey of the house. He has stated that the accused persons present in the Court were those two boys. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that Ramesh Kumar did not change the clothes and went from his house on motorcycle without managing his clothes. This witness did not see any blood on the clothes of these boys or any part of their body and accused persons met him for the first time in the darkness and thereafter, he is meeting them today in the Court. He has admitted that his Bua and other family members were interrogated by the police officials, but he has denied that he stood as false witness in this case, as other family members of his Bua did not depose as prosecution witnesses. Statement of this witness does not connect the respondents with commission of offence, as alleged. 46 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 83. PW-16 Constable Yashwant Singh had taken six parcels to FSL vide RC No. 96/2008 after receiving the same from PW-18 Krishan Lal on 15.10.2008 and he deposited the same in FSL on 16.10.2008. He is a formal link witness. 84. PW-20 Prakash Chand Patwari, who has produced Tatima (Ext. PW20/B) and Jamabandi (Ext. PW20/C) after receiving application (Ext. PW20/A). This witness is also formal witness. 85. PW-23 Constable Roshan Lal is a witness to production of documents of yellow coloured motorcycle of PW-27 Manoj Kumar, which was taken into possession vide memo (Ext. PW23/A). In view of discharge of Ankit Jamwal, this evidence is irrelevant. 86. PW-24 Ganga Ram is a witness to the production of affidavit by Hem Singh, father of respondent Ramesh Kumar of motorcycle alleged to be used, being driven by Ramesh Kumar on the date of incident. This witness has flatly refused the story of prosecution by saying that nothing was taken in possession in his presence. He has even not identified his signatures on Ext. PW7/A. 87. It is true that some incident has occurred, wherein one person Hem Raj has died and PW-14 Gopal Singh, PW-15 Chaman Lal and Karam Singh had received injuries and it has also come on record 47 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 from the MLCs of respondents (Ext. DX & Ext. DY) that on the medical examination on 10.10.2008, certain abrasions were found on their body, however, for sketchy investigation, it is difficult to conclude that respondents were really assailants, who killed the deceased Hem Raj and caused injuries to PW-14 Gopal Singh, PW-15 Chaman Lal and Karam Singh. Ankit Jamwal and Vineet @ Vicky have been discharged by the Investigating Officer in mysterious circumstances. However, at the same time in the evidence of complainant PW-14 Gopal Singh as well as injured PW-15 Chaman Lal, no evidence has come on record to enable the Court to take cognizance or to propose taking of cognizance against Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal for commission of the offence. The credibility of not only Investigating Officer, but police officials, associated in the investigation is under cloud. It is apparent from the record that true happening/incident is being hidden by all of them. Therefore, there is no sufficient material for passing any order for conducting inquiry against Ankit Jamwal and Vineet @ Vicky, especially when the complainant and injured have not only deposed in the Court, but have also submitted written application and made supplementary statements before the police by contradicting their own earlier statements, which were also recorded 48 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 after 14 hours delay after the incident, despite arrival of the police on the spot, about 11 hours before that. 88. PW-26 Hem Raj is a photographer of Chail Chowk. He took photographs (Ext. PW26/A-1 to Ext. PW26/A-7, Ext. PW15/A, Ext. PW15/B, Ext. PW15/C, Ext. PW15/D, Ext. PW15/E and Ext. D1. For absence of reliable version of victims, these photographs are of no help to the prosecution. 89. In view of above discussion and taking into consideration depositions of complainant, injured and other witnesses, purported to be eye witnesses as well as key official witnesses including PW-6 Constable Murari Lal, PW-10 ASI Shakti Chand, PW-18 HC Krishan Lal and PW-19 Inder Dev as well as PW-28 SI Dharam Singh and evidence of remaining witnesses is of no help to the prosecution. 90. Respondents have advantage to have been acquitted by the Trial Court verifying presumption of innocence in their favour and learned Deputy Advocate General has not been able to point out any cogent, reliable and convincing evidence on record to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt, so as to warranting interference in judgment of acquittal by this Court in present appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. 49 2026:HHC:20645-DB State of H.P. vs. Hanj Raj and Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010 91 Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Bail bonds furnished by respondents stand discharged. Record of Trial Court be sent back forthwith. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. (Ranjan Sharma), Judge. 30th May, 2026 (Susheel)