IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 98 of 2002 Date of decision: 6.1.2009. State of H.P. …. Appellant. Vs. Sunil Kumari and others. ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No.. For the appellant-State: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General. For the respondents No. 1, 2 & 4: Mr. Bhupinder Ahuja, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur at Rekongpeo, in Criminal Case No. 60-2 of 2000 dated 21.6.2001, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 6.8.2000 complainant PW-1 Anita Kumari lodged a report with the Police Station Sangla that on the said date she and her elder sister Smt. Sunita were coming from the fields after cutting grass. Accused Sunil Kumari and Hans Raj were accompanying them. On the way these two accused persons started quarreling with them and accused Sunil Kumari picked up a stone and threw it on the face Anita Kumari as a result of this her one tooth was broken. Shri Uma Nand and his wife Smt. Sandhia who were also accompanying them intervened and saved them from the accused. During investigation, it was found that all the accused were beating the complainant and the complainant was saved by one Shri Yang Sain and Smt. Chanderjin. The learned trial Court acquitted the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment . yes. 2 accused on the ground that the story as given in the original complaint has been totally changed while presenting the case in Court. In the original complaint, it was mentioned that the accused was saved by Uma Nand and his wife Sandhia. However, during the course of investigation and the proceedings this version was totally changed. These persons were dropped and instead the name of Yang Sain and Chanderjin was introduced. While appearing in Court PW-1 Anita Kumari had stated that she, her sister and grand mother were returning after cutting the grass. Accused Sunil Kumari, Hans Raj, Ishwar Devi and Ram Devi suddenly appeared and caught hold of her and gave her fist and leg blows. Accused Sunil Kumari picked up a stone and gave a stone blow on her face. According to her, her sister Sunita Kumari was also beaten by the accused persons. Then witnesses Yang Sain and Smt. Chanderjin appeared and saved them. According to her she had only named the two accused Hans Raj and Sunil Kumari because she could not remember the name of the other accused due to pain in her teeth. It is important to note that when this witness went to lodge F.I.R. she was in her senses and accompanied by her father. She admits that she knows all the accused and knew the names of other two accused Ishwari Devi and Ram Devi at the time of the lodging of the complaint. It is important to note that complainant herself has admitted that there is long standing litigation between her family on the one hand and the family of the accused on the other. A large number of cases have been filed by each party against the other. She admits that she had name Uma Nand and Sandhia as the eye witnesses. She also states Shri Yang Sain reached the spot 1-2 hours after the occurrence. It is obvious that no reliance can be placed on her 3 statement. She has changed her statement just to suit her purpose. There is no explanation as to why Uma Nand and Sandhia Devi were not associated with the investigation. In the first information they were the only eye witnesses mentioned. During her statement in Court she changes the name of eye witnesses to Yang Sain and Smt. Chanderjin. Her statement in Court is totally contrary to the statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The statement Yang Sain cannot be relied upon since even according to the complainant he reached the spot 1-2 hours after the incident. He is a close relative of the complainant. Since there is long standing enmity between the two parties his statement is that of an interested witness. In view of the above discussion, the very foundation of the case of the prosecution crumbles. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. January 6, 2009 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™