1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 635 of 2001. Date of Decision: 11-11-2008. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant. Versus Kuldeep Guleria and another. Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondents : Mr. Rajeev Jiwan, Advocate. ______________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (oral) The respondents were tried and acquitted of the offences under Section 323, 324, 325 and 506 read with Section 34, I.P.C. Their acquittal has been assailed in this appeal by the State on the ground that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in the right manner. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record in its meticulous details. In short, the prosecution case is that the respondents are the tenants in the building known as ‘Kalyan Lodge’, in Lakkar Bazar, Shimla wherein the complainant and his family members are also residing in Set No.3, opposite to Shri V.C. Guleria as tenants. It is alleged that on 7.5.1997, at about 8.00 P.M, the complainant A.K. Roy was in his tenanted premises. His son PW Raj Shekhar took out his bicycle from the room to visit his friend. The respondents Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 were residing with Shri V.C. Guleria. They are alleged to have appeared from the tenanted premises of Shri V.C. Guleria, and threw his bicycle down and did not allow Raj Shekhar to take it. When he tried to take his bicycle, the respondent Vinod Kumar started beating him with Danda. When his mother Rita Roy came out, she was also given beatings. On hearing the noise, the complainant also came out and he is alleged to have been hit by some sharp edged weapon on his right hand. It is alleged that in the year 1992 and also in the year 1994, the respondents have picked up quarrel with the complainant and threatened with dire consequences. The matter was reported to the Police on the basis of which FIR was registered under the aforesaid offences. After recording the statements of the witnesses, the police prepared the challan and presented in the Court for the trial of the respondents. Finding a prima facie case against the respondents for the aforesaid offences, they were charge-sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their case was denial simplicitor, however alleged enmity. No defense evidence was led. On the critical examination of the evidence on record, it is apparent that some bad blood is created inter-se the parties for the last more than a decade. The accused party have been representing against the complainant party about their conduct to the higher authorities and even in the year 1992 and 1994 as alleged by PW1,some dispute took place, whereas with respect to the present incident, the cross cases were instituted against each 3 other. The complainant party is also facing trial. According to PW2 Rita Roy, she sustained fracture of her right thumb because of the beatings given by the respondents but according to Dr. Dev Raj, there was a swelling of the right elbow and the right thumb. She was advised X-ray. In the opinion of Doctor, this injury was grievous caused with blunt weapon but he did not say that there was a fracture of the thumb nor the prosecution has bothered to elicit from him as to what were the basis for opining injury No.1 as grievous. The record does not show that x-ray of the thumb was taken nor ski grams were exhibited in the statement of the Doctor. The radiologist was also not examined and the said Doctor also did not say that he had ever perused the x-rays with respect to the injury in question. Therefore, the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code is not proved. In so far as Section 324 of the I.P.C.is concerned, there was an incised wound of U-shape in the right hand of PW1 Arun Kanti Roy. He did not disclose as to how he sustained this injury and with which weapon it was caused. PW2 Rita Roy in her statement has introduced the knife which was allegedly used by respondent Kuldip Guleria but this fact was not even mentioned in the F.I.R. by PW1. PW4 Shri Raj Shekhar although has made similar statement to that of his mother with respect to use of knife but he did not specifically state as to who out of the two respondents was having the knife. PW1 has given a dramatically opposite story in the Court that when he tried to rescue the respondents, respondent Kuldip Kumar had thrown acid on his right hand which caused the bleeding injury to him. In his cross-examination, he has stated that Shri V.C. Guleria, was trying to evict him unlawfully from the tenanted premises and he also appeared as a witness against them in the eviction case. 4 He admitted having lodged the F.I.R. by respondent Kuldip Kumar about the same incident. It is also admitted by PW6 Constable Sant Ram as well as by the Investigating Officer. On the whole spectrum of the case, the story of giving beatings by the respondents to the complainant as alleged by them is shrouded by suspicious circumstances and the statements of the witnesses are full of omissions and glaring contradictions. It is not known as to who was the aggressor. Sustaining of simple injuries on the person of the complainant party may be in a scuffle. The complaint kept hidden something like an ice berg and the truth has not come forth. Therefore, the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court are reasonable and borne out from the evidence on record, thus cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon them at any time during the proceedings of this case. (Surinder Singh) Judge. November 11, 2008. (bm)