HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No. : 443 of 2003 Decided on: 3.6.2010 State of Himachal Pradesh ……… Appellant. Versus Mohinder Singh and another ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr.Vinod Thakur, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jogindernagar, dated 14.9.2000, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 325/323/34 of the IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 30.12.1996, at about 10.30 a.m., a report was lodged with the police by one Brij Bhushan, who was accompanied by his father Mangat Ram, in which he alleged that on the previous night, he was present in the village in connection with a function of Devta. He further alleged that he and his father were coming back at 9.30 p.m. and on way, Tara Chand accompanied by Mohinder Singh and Mohan Singh, met them. Tara Chand asked him as to where they were going. He told them that he was going to his residence and on this Tara Chand, Mohinder Singh and Mohan Singh attacked him and ___________________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - his father with legs and fists. He suffered injury on his teeth and his tooth was broken. He also suffered injuries on both ears and on right hand and blood started oozing out. No person came to their rescue and he went to his residence, informed his mother about the occurrence, who came to the spot and took his father to their residence. He further alleged in the report that this occurrence was witnessed by Lal Singh etc. He also alleged that these three accused person were accompanied by other persons but they had not given any beatings. On this report, a case was registered by the police. Both the complainant and his father were medically examined and on completion of the investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondents for the offences, as detailed above, leading to their acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that there is statement of PW-1 Brij Bhushan, complainant, in support of the assertions made by him in the report lodged with the police. He only stated that all three accused persons met him on the way. He suffered injuries on his mouth and when his father tried to rescue him, he was also given beatings. He came back and informed the occurrence to his mother. He also stated that this occurrence was witnessed by Lal Singh. In his statement, the complainant PW-1 Brij Bhushan has neither named the accused persons, nor identified them in the Court. He has also not stated that he suffered injuries on which - 3 - part of his body, except mouth. He has also not stated as to how many injuries were inflicted upon him and by which of the accused persons. He admitted that there are many houses nearby and the occurrence had taken place on a common path. He also stated that hue cry had been raised, but none came to the spot. 5. PW-3 Mangat Ram, father of the complainant PW- 1 Brij Bhushan, has stated that he was coming back alongwith his son and accused met them. They gave beatings to his son. He further stated that when he attempted to save his son, he was also given beatings and tooth of his son was broken. He also did not identify the accused persons in the court nor named them in the court. It is also clear that he did not state over which particular part of his body or that of his son, the injuries were inflicted or by which of the accused persons. This was necessary so that due corroboration could be had from the medical evidence produced in this case. 6. PW-2 Raj Kumar, Medical Officer, has stated that on 30.12.1996 at about 11.15 a.m. he medically examined PW-1 Brij Bhushan. He found three injuries on this person of Brij Bhushan, including lacerated wounds, while PW-3 Mangat Ram had suffered two injuries. However, PW-1 Brij Bhushan and PW-3 Mangat Ram have not specifically stated as to over which part of their body, the injuries were inflicted. 7. The learned trial Court has given a wrong reasoning that since both the injured i.e. PW-1 and P-3 are father and son and are closely related to each other, therefore, they are interested witnesses. When the complainant had suffered injuries, he can be said to be the - 4 - best witness and there is no question of his being an interested witness having relation with another injured. Another reasoning wrongly given by the learned trial is that there is nothing in the statements of PW-2 Dr.Raj Kumar and PW-6 Dr.Jai Ram, who medically examined the complainant and his father, that the injuries were sustained by the complainant and his father as a result of the beatings given by the accused. Both the Medical Officers could only state about the injuries sustained by the complainant and his father, and it has to be seen as to whether their depositions corroborate the testimony of the complainant and his father. 8. PW-4 Lal Singh, the only independent witness examined in the case, though it was mentioned that Lal Singh etc. were present at the spot, had stated that both the accused party and the complainant party were grappling with one another and the complainant had suffered injuries. He has stated in his cross examination that he does not know as to how the injuries were sustained. Therefore, he does not corroborate the testimony of the complainant and his father. 9. The net result of the above discussion is that the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. Therefore, I hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. June 3, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge