IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 313 of 2002. Decided on: April 23, 2009. __________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Subhash Chand and another. …..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Vikram Thakur Advocate, vice Mr. Vijay Thakur, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral): The acquittal of the respondents under Sections 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code has been challenged by the State in this appeal, on the grounds that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence in the proper perspective, but at the same time set an unrealistic standard to evaluate the direct and cogent evidence and the testimonies of the injured witnesses were brushed aside on untenable reasons. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the evidence on record. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - In short, the prosecution story is that on 27.6.1994 in village Pharer, the complainant Raj Kumar accompanied by his aunt Jamuna Devi and Ravinder went to their field for work. In the meantime, respondents came to the spot and raised the objection with respect to the possession of the fields. The respondents also informed the complainant party that the civil case was pending in the court with respect to the possession of the land. It is alleged that the respondents who were armed with ‘Danda’ and ‘Fawra’ (spade) attacked the complainant Raj Kumar and his aunt Jamuna Devi and gave them severe beatings. In the meantime, PW4 Sudesh Kumari also reached the spot. She was also given thrashing by the respondents. The matter was reported to the police. The injured were got medically examined by PW5 Dr.G.C.Sood. The injury No.1 found on the person of Jamuna Devi was only opined to be grievous, having been caused with blunt object within 24 hours, whereas, the other injuries on her person and on the person of other injured persons were simple in nature. - 3 - It is also pertinent to note that on the same day, the respondent Subhash Chand was also got medically examined as he had sustained the lacerated wound in his right elbow and a simple injury near the arm joint, which was painful. The said injuries were also X-rayed, but no fracture was detected, however, these injuries were also opined to be simple in nature. In the opinion of the Doctor, the said injuries can be caused by ‘Danda’ and ‘Fawra’ blows. The case of the respondents was that the land in question was in their possession and the decree to that effect was passed in their favour but it was the complainant party, who wanted to take its forcible possession, which was resisted. It is noticed that FIR was lodged by Raj Kumar on 27.6.94 at about 3.20 p.m. wherein he cited one Man Singh and his wife as eye witnesses, but none of these witnesses were examined to lend corroboration to the case of the complainant. In so far as the statement of complainant Raj Kumar is concerned, he has deposed that respondents along with one Goldy were also present on the spot. Goldy had a ‘Danda’ in his hand - 4 - and even Jamuna Devi (PW2) in her statement recorded before the court disclosed that one Dhian Chand was present along with the respondents. It was he who had given beatings to her. Jamuna Devi had sustained the grievous injures as aforesaid, but she did not state that the said injuries were inflicted on her person by the respondents. Neither Goldy nor Dhian Chand were named as accused persons in the FIR, nor the police had arrayed them as accused, but their names figured during the trial of the case. Not only this, the another injured Sudesh Kumar (PW4) has stated to have been given beatings by some ladies. She did not name any. Even those ladies were not impleaded as accused in this case. Significantly, Smt. Subhdera has been cited as a witness. She has been examined as PW3. She also contradicted the version of injured persons and stated that the respondents had given the beatings to them, whereas injured had a different story to tell. As already stated above, the alleged occurrence is stated to have been witnessed by Man Singh and his wife. The - 5 - name of Subhdera did not find mention in FIR, then it is not understood why Subhedra was examined and Man Singh and his wife were not cited as witnesses and examined as witnesses of the occurrence to lend support to the prosecution case. In this way, the injured witnesses have materially contradicted with each other and the independent witness examined in the court gave a contradictory version with respect to the incident. Dhian Chand and Goldy, who have alleged to have been present on the spot and attacked the complainant were not made the accused, therefore, possibility of causing the injuries to them by the respondents, especially when one of the respondent named Subhash Chand who had also sustained the injures, remained unexplained; the truthfulness of the whole incident in view of the defence taken remained hidden like an iceberg, which casts a doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution case. Therefore, the learned trial court had rightly acquitted the respondents by giving them the benefit of doubt. Thus, there is no scope of interference in the - 6 - impugned judgment of acquittal, findings of which is based upon the evidence on record, as such the appeal sans merits and it is dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh), Judge. April 23, 2009. (Pds)