Even if statement of complainant is taken to be true as it is then also, there is no iota of substance in the said statement so as to construe intention of petitioner-accused to kill the injured. This honorable judgement was passed by High Court of Shimla in the case of Lekh Ram Versus State of Himachal Pradesh [Cr.M.P.(M) No.354 of 2021] by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
The petition was filed by petitioner seeking regular bail under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, in case FIR No.9 of 2021, registered in Police Station Arki, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein it is stated that, the Pooja Devi had telephonically informed Police Chowki Sarli that petitioner-accused had beaten her and her father-in-law, whereupon, police party had rushed to the spot and statement of Pooja Devi was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., she along with her father-in-law and 8 years old daughter had been working in the fields and in a water channel. At about 4.00 p.m. petitioner-accused came to the fields of complainant and said that on that day it was his turn for irrigation and why water was utilized by complainant party from the water channel. Whereupon, complainant had explained that her daughter had taken little water for playing, but petitioner accused, out of anger, had hit on her neck and head with iron spade and when complainant tried to run to save her, petitioner accused had beaten her after restraining her and during this quarrel, her clothes were torn and when her father-in-law tried to save her, he was also hit by petitioner-accused with spade causing injuries on his left arm, head and other parts of the body.
According to learned counsel for petitioner, “complainant party was wrong, who had interrupted the water infringing the rights of irrigation of the petitioner-accused and the injury is grievous and dangerous to life. However, as a matter of fact, from the date of incident i.e. 07.02.2021 till 16.02.2021, there was no such allegation on the part of the complainant that petitioner-accused was having intention to kill the injured. There is no iota of substance in the said statement so as to construe intention of petitioner-accused to kill the injured.”
The court allowed the Petition stating that, “the ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.9 of 2021 on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court, within two weeks from today, upon such further conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by the trial Court, including the conditions enumerated hereinafter, so as to ensure the presence of petitioner at the time of trial.”
