IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2002. Date of decision: 6.4.2009. State of H.P. ….. Appellant. Vs. Chattar Singh & anr. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. M.L. Brakta, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The judgement of acquittal passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Court No.3, Shimla in case No. 37/2 of 99/98, acquitting the respondents for offence, punishable under Sections 451, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, has been assailed by the State in the present appeal. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW 3 Akshay Kumar Sood complainant by way of rapat No. 8 dated 2.10.1998 Ex. PW 2/A reported at Police Post, Kasumpti that on 2.10.1998 at 11.30 a.m. he had gone to the quarter of Hem Shankar for his personal work, he came back, thereafter at 12.30 p.m., Chattar Singh and his two sons Raju and Pinki asked him why he visited their house. He told them that he went to meet his neighbour as he was to take Rs.1500/- from him, he did not go to their house. On this, all Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… three of them gave beatings to him with kick and fist blows and threatened to kill him, they also uttered filthy abuses. He raised alarm and on this, Hem Shankar and Smt. Gobind and his other neighbours came there and on seeing them Chattar Singh and his sons ran away from that place. Chattar Singh and his sons are inimical towards him, in the beatings, he sustained injuries on his left cheek and right leg. On this, police came into action. The injured was got medically examined by PW 5 Dr. Puneet Mahajan, who issued MLC Ex. PW 5/A and found simple injuries on the person of injured, site plan was prepared. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against the respondent. Notice of accusation was put to respondents for offence, punishable under Sections 451, 323, 504, 506(I) read with Section 34 IPC, to which they did not plead guilty. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses and produced some documents on record. The statements of respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the respondents denied the prosecution case and did not lead any evidence in defence. The learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondents, hence this appeal. 3. Heard and perused the record. The first version of PW 1 Akshay Kumar Sood complainant is in Ex. PW 2/A, as noticed above. The complainant in Ex. PW 2/A has nowhere named PW 2 Sangeeta, he rather named Hem Shankar, Smt. Gobind and other neighbours without naming them who came on the spot after hearing his cries. PW 3 Akshay Kumar Sood, in his statement in the court has stated that Hem Shankar, his wife Sangeeta and Dhani Devi had seen the occurrence taking place. He has also stated that Dhani Devi had …3… raised alarm. PW 3 has made material improvement in his statement in the court when he has stated that Dhani Devi had raised alarm and Sangeeta and Hem Shankar had seen the occurrence. In his examination-in-chief, he has not said that he was rescued by anybody. Hem Shankar and Dhani Devi have not been examined by the prosecution. PW 2 Sangeeta cannot be believed inasmuch as PW 3 complainant in his statement has not stated that Sangeeta was present on the spot at the time of occurrence. PW 1 Ramu did not support the prosecution and he was cross-examined by the prosecution but in cross-examination also he has stated that in his presence on 2.10.1998 at about 12.30 p.m., no occurrence took place. In Ex. PW 2/A, the complainant has stated that Chattar Singh and his two sons Raju and Pinki gave him beatings but no explanation has been given at the time of hearing why Raju who was named as one of the assailants in Ex. PW 2/A was not prosecuted. It means the prosecution from the very beginning did not accept the version of complainant as disclosed by him to the police. 4. PW 4 HC Jai Lal is the Investigating Officer. PW 5 Dr. Puneet Mahajan has proved MLC Ex. PW 5/A of the complainant. In cross examination, he has stated that all injuries are possible in fall. The learned Judicial Magistrate has properly appreciated the material on record. The statement of PW 3 complainant has not been corroborated by an independent witness. The persons named in rapat Ex. PW 2/A, who allegedly seen the occurrence, were not examined, on the contrary PW 2 who was not named in Ex. PW 2/A was examined. The complainant made improvement in his statement …4… in the court and thus he materially contradicted his first version given to the police. There is no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgement. The court below has rightly acquitted the respondents. No case for interference is made out. 5. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds of respondents are discharged. April 6, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.