IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 285 of 2002. Date of Decision : 13.09.2011 State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus. Harjit alias Ali & Another. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. B. Misra, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?. No. For the Appellant : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. For the respondents : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Per Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J (Oral). The Prosecution-State is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dharamashala acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 323 and 324, IPC read with Section 34, IPC. 2. The genesis of the case is Ex.PW1/A, which is the statement of Sonam Dorji (injured) recorded under Section 154, Cr.P.C. by the police. He states that his friend Rabgyal had opened a new shop and on 24.5.1999 at 9.00 P.M., he had gone to met his friend for celebrating. They went to hotel Tebiyat where they consumed liquor and had dinner. It is stated that at that time Hans Raj accused was involved in a argument over the purchase of cigarettes with his friend Rapgayal, when accused Ali inflicted a blow on his head with a sharp edged weapon. Vide Ext. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Ex.PW4/A the injuries were proved on record. The history was interesting. It states that injured Sonam was brought to the hospital by his wife . He was in an unconscious condition. Doctor has observed that the patient was smelling of alcohol and not replying properly to the questions and found 10 injuries on the person of the injured. 3. Learned Magistrate referred to the evidence of PW2 Rapgayal, who has been declared hostile and strangely he has denied the entire incident. In examination-in-chief he states that in the year 1999 he had gone to hotel Tebiat with Sonam where they consumed liquor and came back to their residence. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. The cross-examination is extremely brief but nothing has been elicited which would detract from the veracity of his examination-in-chief. Though, PW3 Sonam supports the case of the prosecution but the learned Magistrate after considering the evidence of the other witnesses including the fact that the weapon of offence Ex. P2 which was recovered vide recovery memo Ex.PW7/A was not the weapon of offence as was stated by the complainant himself in Court has acquitted the accused. 4. We have heard the learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the State as also the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. It is urged on behalf of the State that the statement of the injured person is the best evidence and cannot be doubted. Reliance is placed on the statement of the injured as he is the best witness having suffered the injuries. We have no doubt that it is the well established proposition of law. But when the complainant 3 in his statement Ex.PW1/A under Section 154, Cr.P.C. states that PW2 Rapgayal who was present through out with the complainant and has seen the entire incident and PW2 Rapgayal had denied the entire incident and had only stated that he had gone to the hotel and consumed liquor with the injured/complainant and came back to home, we find that it is not sufficient to place reliance on the statement of injured complainant Sonam, PW3 alone and there is nothing on record to show that PW2 had any motive to resile from his statement. The medical evidence as noted by us already shows that injured was under the influence of alcohol disoriented and unable to reply to the question put the doctor. The recovery of Ex. P2 vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A is also not proved on record. Again PW3 Sonam here says that it is not the same weapon with which the injuries were inflicted. Even PW4 who is the witness to the recovery has denied such recovery. 6. In these circumstances, we find that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no merit in the appeal preferred by the State, which is accordingly rejected. 7. The bail bonds furnished by the accused/respondents are hereby discharged. (R.B. Misra), Judge. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. 13th September, 2011. (jai)