IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.646 of 2002 Decided on August 26 , 2009 State of H.P …Appellant Versus Kehar Singh and another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal Additional Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : Rohit Sharma, Advocate. KULDIP SINGH JUDGE (ORAL) State has come in appeal against judgment dated 12.09.2001, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, in Criminal Case No. 21-II/97, acquitting the respondents for offence punishable under Sections 325/506/34 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that PW-2 Smt. Sudesh Rani, complainant on 08.06.1995, at about 6.30 P.M., was washing clothes in the Kuhl, passing through her land, situate in Village Kaulpur, near Chamukha, in Mauza Kaloha, Tehsil Dehra. She had left her buffalo grazing in her fields but the animal entered into the land of respondents and started grazing. The respondents who were taking out weeds from nearby fields came and started abusing the complainant. The Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… respondent No.1 caught hold complainant by her left arm and twisted her arm which caused fracture. The respondent No. 2 caught hold the complainant by her hair. PW-4 Sanjeev and PW-3 Sunita Rani, son and daughter of the complainant were present on the spot. They started weeping and on this, respondents let off the complainant. The respondents threatened the complainant to do away with her life. The complainant, reported the matter at Police Station, Jwalamukhi and the case was registered under Sections 325/506/34 IPC. 3. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court and the respondents were charged for offence punishable under Sections 325/506/34 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined five witnesses and produced some documents on record. The statements of respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. They denied the prosecution case and pleaded their innocence. No evidence was led in defence. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, acquitted the respondents, hence, State has come in appeal. 4. Heard and perused the record. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has submitted that learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has erred in acquitting the respondents. The material on record has been mis-construed and misinterpreted by the learned court below. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has supported the impugned Judgment. …3… 5. PW-1, Dr. K.K. Rattan examined Sudesh Rani and found certain injuries on her person and issued Ex. MLC PW-1/B. In cross-examination, he has stated that possibility of injury being caused by fall cannot be ruled out. PW-2 Sudesh Rani, complainant has stated that her son Sanjeev was on the spot. The accused abused her. The accused No. 2 caught hold and accused No.1 twisted her left arm. The accused gave 3-4 blows on her back. The accused No. 1 threatened her that she would be killed. In the meantime, Sanjeev son and Sunita daughter came on the spot. The accused No.1 chased her children with stone in his hand. Nobody came there to save her as no one was on the spot. The accused No. 2 caught hold her from hair. She was rescued by Sushila Dodaru. The occurrence was only seen by his son and daughter as no one was on the spot. The left arm which was twisted by accused No.1 got fractured. She was medically examined. 6. The PW-2 in her cross-examination has stated that the house of Chuhru was at a distance of 15 yards from the place of occurrence. There are about 20-22 houses at a distance of 100 yards from the place of occurrence and no body came from those houses on the spot. She has stated that her father-in-law had gifted property to Kehar Singh and two other sons and nothing has been given to her husband. 7. PW-3, Sunita Rani has stated that accused had given 3-4 fist blows on the back of her mother. Kehar Singh twisted the left arm of her mother. She has stated that when her mother and …4… Angrajo Devi were quarrelling, at that time, she and her brother pelted 15-20 stones, out of which Angrajo Devi might have received 10-12 stones. PW-4, Sanjeev Kumar has generally supported the case of the complainant, but in cross-examination, has stated that Kehar Singh is his uncle (Chacha) and they have litigation. He has stated that her mother was fined Rs.5/- and Rs.50/- at the instance of Kehar Sing. PW-5 is the Investigating Officer. 8. It has come in the evidence of the complainant that the house of Chuhru is at a distance of 15 yards from the place of occurrence and there are 20-22 houses at a distance of 100 yards from the place of occurrence. But surprisingly the prosecution has not examined any person from the house of Chuhru and from those houses which are situated at a distance of 100 yards from the place of occurrence. It has come on record that the complainant and the accused are close relatives and they are in litigation. The prosecution has not examined any independent witness. PW-1, Dr. K.K. Rattan has stated that the injuries found on the person of the complainant are possible due to fall. In rapat Ex. PW-2/A in the earlier part, the complainant has stated that her son Sanjeev was on the spot, but in the later part of Ex. PW-2/A, the complainant has stated that her daughter Sunita and Sanjeev started weeping. It is not the case of the complainant in rapat Ex. PW-2/A that her daughter Sunita was on the spot from the very beginning nor it has been made clear in the evidence when …5… Sunita came on the spot. The relations between the parties were not cordial. 9. Sushila Dodaru named by complainant has not examined. The parties are in litigation. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not safe to convict the respondents on the basis of statements of complainant and her two children without corroboration from independent witnesses. The prosecution has not examined independent witnesses in the case, in support of the allegations of the complainant. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken a possible view from the evidence on record. In appeal, simply other view is possible is no ground to convert the acquittal in conviction. Learned Assistant Advocate General has failed to make out a case for interference and, therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Bail bonds of the respondents are discharged. (Kuldip Singh) Judge August 26, 2009 *BRB*