IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 304 of 2004. Date of Decision: 28th June, 2011. _______________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus Sher Singh ..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Sanjiv Sood, Advocate, vice Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) The respondent was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned trial Court. The State felt aggrieved, as such filed the present appeal. 2. In short, the prosecution story can be summed up thus. On 20.4.1999, PW3 Darshana, wife of PW2 Pritam Chand, is alleged to have tethered her cattle in the vacant field of Prito Devi, the aunt of the accused/respondent. Around 3.00 P.M. accused Sher Singh let loose the cattle. Seeing this, Darshana tried again to tether cattle at the aforesaid place. On this, Sher Singh is alleged to have given beatings to her for half an hour, with the result she sustained injuries on Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - various parts of her body. When PW2 Pritam Chand her husband came there to rescue her, he was also given beatings. On hearing commotion, Ram Dei, Parkash Chand, Sumna Devi and Raksha also came to the spot. On seeing them, the respondent made an escape from the spot. The matter was reported to police. Pritam Chand and his wife Darshana were got medically examined. The injuries on the forearm of PW2 Pritam Chand were got X-rayed. It was opined to be fracture on shaft ulna. Police after completing the investigation presented the Challan, under the aforesaid Sections against the respondent. 3. The respondent was charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted for the aforesaid offences on the ground that when admittedly the independent witnesses were available but they were not examined and only closely related witnesses were examined who did not speak truth. Further that PW4 Sumna Devi also admitted the presence of Nanak Chand on the spot, who was also not taken into confidence by the police to afford corroboration to the statement of the injured persons. Further the statement of PW4 Sumna Devi did not reconcile with the statements of Darshana and her husband and doctor also opined that these injuries could be caused due to fall and the alleged grievous - 3 - injury on the person of Pritam Chand could not be attributed to the respondent, as such the prosecution case did not inspire confidence. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record. 5. As already stated above, the field where the cattle were tethered by Darshana did not belong to her. She categorically stated that this was the field of Prito, aunt of the respondent. Even PW4 Sumna Devi, sister-in- law of Darshana, though turned hostile, but made a damaging statement to the prosecution that Darshana had tethered her animals in the field which was in possession of the accused. Though, initially the case of the prosecution was that it was a vacant field of Prito, but PW3 Darshana stated that it was a field where wheat-crop was present. PW4 Sumna Devi further stated that when she reached the spot, she saw Darshana goading her animals. She categorically stated that the respondent did not beat either Darshana or her husband Pritam Chand and she could not say with authenticity that these injuries on their persons were caused because of fall as they were chasing the animals. 6. It is settled law that the statement of the hostile witness can not be thrown over-board, but both - 4 - the parties can make the use of the statement to the extent it helps either of them. 7. In the instant case, the aforesaid hostile witness has corroborated the version given by the accused. Further, Nanak Chand who happened to be present on the spot was not examined to lend support to the case of the prosecution. Doctor also did not over rule the possibility of causing injuries by fall. As per Darshana, she was given beatings for half an hour by the respondent with stick, but she suffered only four minor injuries is unbelievable, further the doctor did not over rule the possibility of these injuries by fall. Grievous injuries to Pritam Singh could not be attributed to the respondent. The Danda so recovered was not shown to the doctor, whether such an injury was possible with it. 8. Thus, in the totality of the circumstances, in my opinion, the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal does not require any interference. The appeal sans merit and is dismissed. 9. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of this case. June 28, 2010. (Surinder Singh), (rc) Judge.