IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.412 of 2001 Date of decision : May 9, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Manjit Singh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment of Sessions Court, whereby respondent Manjit Singh, who had been convicted of offences, under Sections 323 and 325 IPC, by the trial Magistrate, was acquitted in appeal. 2. A report was lodged with the police by PW-1 Ajmer Singh that on 27.10.1991 he had gone to village Saloh to attend a function in connection with the birthday of a grandson of one Vikar and there he happened to have a wordy duel with one Sadhu Singh. On the next day, i.e. 28th October, 1991, around 8.30 PM, when he was listening to the news, a man by the name of Gurbachan Singh came and told that some persons were waiting for him near Shiv Temple. When he went to that temple, respondent Manjit Singh and one unknown boy, were there. They asked Ajmer Singh as to what did he say to Sadhu Singh on the previous day. When PW-1 Ajmer Singh told them that he did Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… not say anything, they started giving fist blows to him. In the meanwhile, four other boys came there and they also joined respondent Manjit Singh and one unknown boy accompanying him, and all the six gave beatings to Ajmer Singh. Respondent Manjit Singh dealt a blow on the mouth of Ajmer Singh, as a result of which one of his upper incisors fell from the socket and the other became loose. 3. Matter was reported to the police next day around 1.30 PM. Police got Ajmer Singh medically examined. The doctor opined that one upper tooth was missing and another was loose. Police registered a case under Sections 323 and 325 IPC. Five persons, including the respondent, were challaned. 4. Trial Magistrate on conclusion of the trial acquitted four other persons challaned with the respondent, but convicted him of offences, under Sections 323 and 325 IPC and awarded sentence of one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-, in respect of offence under Section 325 IPC and simple imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.500/-, in respect of offence, under Section 323 IPC. 5. Sessions Court, in appeal, filed by the respondent, set aside the judgment of the trial Magistrate and acquitted the respondent. 6. I have gone through the entire evidence and heard the learned Advocate General as also the learned counsel representing the respondent. PW-1 Ajmer Singh very categorically stated that a fist blow was dealt on his mouth as a result of which one of his teeth fell and got lost on the spot and the other became loose and that in addition to that fist blow on the mouth, he was given several other fist blows by the respondent and his accomplices. The doctor, however, did not find any corresponding injury on the lip of PW-1 Ajmer Singh. Not only this, the doctor also did not notice any injury to the upper …3… socket at the point where one incisor was missing and another was loose, indicating that the cause of disappearance of one incisor and the loosening of other was some act of violence or use of force committed against him. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the cause of loss of one incisor and the loosening of the other was any fist blow given by the respondent or anyone of his accomplices. Other injuries were of simple nature. The doctor opined that the same could have been sustained due to fall. 7. Prosecution did not examine Gurbachan Singh, who allegedly went to PW-1 Ajmer Singh, to inform him that some persons were waiting for him at the temple. Prosecution also did not examine any witness from the village, even though according to the testimony of PW-1 Ajmer Singh, several persons had gathered on the spot, on hearing his cries. 8. Prosecution also did not explain the delay in lodging the report with the police. Incident allegedly took place at 8.30 PM on 28.10.1991, but the matter was reported to the police on the next following day at 12 in the noon. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is only 15 kilometres and the two places are connected by a motor-able road. In fact, the report was lodged not at the Police Station, but at Police Post, Pandoga, which is at a distance of less than 10 kilometres from the place of occurrence and these two places are also connected by motorable road. 9. In view of above discussed position, the appeal is dismissed. May 9, 2008 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J