IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.261 of 2001 Decided on: January 10, 2008. ____________________________________________________________ State of H P Appellant. Versus Nek Ram. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. D.S. Nainta, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J (oral). Respondent was tried and acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 451, 323 and 506-Part-II of the Indian Penal Code allegedly for committing house trespass in the house of complainant Amari Devi and causing simple injuries to her. In brief, the prosecution case has been that on 24-4-1998, the complainant was present with her husband in her house in village Morla. There was slight altercation inter-se the respondent and the complainant which was limited to abusive language only. Thereafter, it is alleged that the respondent tress-passed into her house and gave her beatings with the result, she sustained injury on her skull and also on the left arm. She was medically examined on the same day but the First Information Report was lodged by her on 6.5.1998. The Police took into possession the Medico Legal Certificate along with X-rays and also prepared the site plan Exhibit PW7/A and recovered wooden plank vide memo Exhibit PW1/A. After recording the Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. statements of the witnesses and completing the investigation, the challan was presented before the trial Court against the respondent. Finding a prima facie case under the aforesaid Sections, the respondent was charge-sheeted. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His case was of denial simplicitor. At the end of the trial, the respondent was acquitted on the ground that the alleged eye witnesses i.e., husband of the complainant and her son did not support the case of the prosecution, there was unexplained undue delay in lodging the F.I.R. and further that the statement of the complainant did not inspire confidence. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully re-examined the evidence on record. The complainant in this case has been examined as PW2. According to her, the delay in lodging of the FIR was owing to the circumstances that after the alleged incident, she was admitted in the Hospital and could not report the matter. But this very explanation goes against the document on record, i.e. Medico Legal Certificate Exhibit PW4/A, perusal of which shows that the complainant was got medically examined on 24.4.1998 by the Police itself as is indicated in one of the columns of the said certificate. It is not understood as to why the case was not registered immediately thereafter. The explanation given by the complainant has proved to be false and a doubt is created on the very story of the prosecution as the delay is being explained through the complainant on incorrect version. If the complainant was examined at the instance of the Police, the prosecution was obliged to bring on record the Rapat Roznamcha wherein some substance might have been recorded by the Police with respect to the alleged incident. It is very astonishing that even her husband Sunder Singh (PW6) who was cited as a witness by her and also her son Ramesh Chand (PW3) have not supported her version at all. According to Ramesh Chand, he did not know as to how his mother had sustained the head injury and his father Sunder Singh has stated in the last line of the cross-examination that the respondent did not give any beating to the complainant. Further, she states in the FIR that the respondent had tress-passed into her house but in her statement she has stated that incident took place outside. Thus, in view of these glaring contradictions and for want of corroboration, her testimony does not inspire confidence more specifically when the injured herself has deviated from the material particulars. Therefore, in my considered opinion, on the re-appraisal of the evidence on record, I do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. As such, the appeal is dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of this case. (Surinder Singh) Judge. January 10, 2008. (bm)