IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.131 of 2001 Date of decision: 21.5.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Ramesh Chand & Ors. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondents: Mr. Anand Sharma with Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocates. V.K.Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the appellant/State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. (Camp at Ghumarwin), dated 16.3.2000, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 341, 325,323 and 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on receipt of an information, a police officer went to hospital and recorded the statement of PW-1 Krishnu under Section 154 Cr.P.C. In that statement, the complainant had alleged that on 15.3.1998 his brother went to call Ex. Pradhan and other respectable villagers for settlement of dispute with the accused party and he had also gone to call several persons. When the complainant reached at a distance of 100 yards from his house, he Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 found accused Dhanwant and Ramesh with an axe and Dharam Singh with a Danda and they came in front of his brother. It was further alleged that Ramesh gave an axe blow on the head of his brother, while Dharam Singh gave blows with Danda and Dhanwant was asking the accused persons to kill them. It was alleged that the occurrence was witnessed by three persons Nathu Ram, Baldev and another person. It was alleged that the accused persons gave beatings and threats. His brother became unconscious and was shifted to hospital and he was unconscious and statement of the complainant was recorded. A case was registered as against the respondents and after investigation, the Challan was filed before the learned trial Court who tried the respondents leading to their acquittal. Heard and have gone through the record. During the course of arguments, I have been taken through the evidence produced by the prosecution. The injuries in question was sustained by PW-4 Dharam Singh who has stated that the accused persons stopped him on the way and Dhanwant asked them to give beatings. Thereafter, Ramesh gave a blow with an axe over his head and Dharam Singh gave Danda blow on his person. He did not mention as to how many blows with Danda were given on his person by Dharam Singh accused. In his cross-examination, he ruled out that the occurrence was witnessed by any person since he clearly stated that when he was given beatings at the spot, none was present at that time. He, therefore, ruled out the presence of complainant Krishnu or other three persons named in the statement recorded by the police. He denied the suggestion that he suffered injuries by fall, though admitted that at the place of occurrence there are stones. 3 PW-1 complainant Krishan Chand, brother of PW-4 Dharam Singh, injured had also stated that accused Dharam Singh and Ramesh were having an axe and danda and gave a blow on the head of his brother and his brother prevented the said injuries being inflicted and suffered injuries on his hand but the injuries have been proved as on head. He further stated that accused Dharam Singh gave Danda blow but he did not mention that how many blows were given with Danda. In his cross-examination, he came up with the plea that 3-4 blows were given on the back of his brother with Danda and there were no other injuries. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed the occurrence but again stated that when he reached the spot, the accused persons had already left. He admitted that he was standing downwards at a distance of 5-7 feet from the place of occurrence and thus it was difficult for him to have witnessed the occurrence. He came with the plea that the stones blows were also given to him, when he was confronted with the police statement, wherein it was not so stated. He has further stated that he had seen the axe and Danda today in Courrt for the first time. It is surprising that he had not seen the axe and Danda on that day and did not state that axe and Danda are similar, but he stated that he had seen them only for the first time when these were recovered by the police. Out of the three witnesses named by the prosecution as eye witnesses PW-2 Nathu Ram only was examined but he did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile. The second eye witness, namely, PW-3 Baldev Singh was examined who had stated that he was present in the courtyard of the complainant at that time and he heard the noise and went there. His statement clearly shows 4 that he had reached afterwards and the statement of two other witnesses does not prove that the occurrence was witnessed by them. The fact is that the relations in between the parties were strained as had been admitted by the complainant and there is boundary dispute in between the parties. The statement of PW-7 Dr. N.K. Sankhyan does not show that the injury on the person of Dharam Singh was caused with an axe since no specific questions were put to him. In the cross- examination, he stated that injury on the scalp was possible with blunt weapon meaning thereby the injury was inflicted by Danda and not by Axe. Therefore, the learned trial Court was left with solitary statement of the complainant and not corroborated by the Medical Officer or other witnesses. Keeping in view the contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution case, the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court that the guilt of the respondents has not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds stand discharged forthwith. May 21, 2008 ( V.K. Ahuja ), (BSS) Judge 5