Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.472 of 2001. Dated of Decision: July 18th, 2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Kashmir Singh. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the Respondent : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh,J (oral) : The State has challenged the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court in Criminal Case No.38-II/97 decided on 19.2.2001, under Sections 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard and gone through the record. In brief the prosecution case has been that on 25.4.1996 at about 10.45 A.M. Jaishi Ram complainant (deceased) was grazing the cattle in the Shamlat area, adjacent to the Dam area, situated in village Amb Tialu. That land was claimed by the respondent to be of his own and while raising the objection he asked him as to why the complainant was grazing his cattle there. The complainant told him that his cattle were not grazing in his land, on this, the respondent caught hold of him from the neck and started giving kicks. Thereafter the respondent caused the injury on his head and hand with a darati - 2 - (sickle). PW1 Des Raj rescued him from his clutches. Ashwani Kumar informed the police. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, the FIR was registered under the aforesaid sections, in police station Haripur. The complainant was medically examined by PW3 Dr. Anil Kaushal. After completing the investigation, the challan was presented in the court for trial of the respondent. The respondent was charge-sheeted, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses. The case of the respondent was denial simplicitor. At the end of the trial, the respondent was acquitted, on the grounds that the statements of the witnesses are contradictory. The complainant had died before his examination in the court and the injury in question, according to the Doctor, could be caused accidentally. The son of the deceased Krishan Kumar (PW2) did not support the prosecution version, thus a reasonable doubt has arisen and therefore, the benefit of doubt was given to the respondent. Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer has argued that the learned trial court has gravely erred in acquitting the respondent on the flimsy ground. Though the complainant could not be examined, because he had died on account of his natural death, but other evidence is consistent with the prosecution story, therefore, there are grounds to reverse the finding of the acquittal. I have gone through the evidence on record. It is pertinent to note that despite several opportunities afforded to the prosecution, the Investigating Officer was not examined, thus, the site plan prepared by him to substantiate the version of the prosecution remained uncorroborated. Further, the complainant is dead and - 3 - there are only the statements of PW1 Des Raj and PW2 Krishan Kumar, the son of the deceased to substantiate the version of the prosecution as alleged in the FIR Ex.PW4/C. Des Raj son of Shri Ram Chand is cited as witness in the FIR, who had relieved the complainant from the clutches of the respondent, but in his cross-examination has stated that the respondent did not hit him with the sickle in his presence. Name of Krishan Kumar son of the complainant does not find mentioned in the FIR, nor his presence has been shown in and around the place of occurrence as per the first version given in the report to the police by the complainant. Though, he has stated that Des Raj, Nek Ram and many other persons were present there, but except Des Raj, no other person was examined in order to lend strength to the prosecution case, whose testimony is also not worth inspiring confidence. Therefore, on the strength of the above evidence, the learned trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, I see no interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. July 18, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.