IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 160 of 2003. Date of Decision: 29th April, 2010. _______________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus Sita Ram ……..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) 1. Respondent Sita Ram was convicted by the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, but instead of awarding substantive sentence he was released on probation. He felt aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and as such filed an appeal before the Court of Sessions. The complainant had also filed appeal for enhancement. The appeal of the complainant was dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by respondent Sita Ram was allowed and he was acquitted of the said Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - offence. It is against this order the State felt dissatisfied and filed the instant appeal against his acquittal. 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record in the light of the judgment passed in appeal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge pointed out certain infirmities in the statements of the prosecution witnesses in his judgment and relied upon the defence of alibi. 3. Although, respondent Sita Ram was a night Chowkidar in Government High School, Pirthipur. He was supposed to be regularly on duty after school hours, i.e., 4.30 p.m. to 9.30 a.m. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that on 2nd January, 1999 at about 8.30 p.m. Naresh Kumar was engaged in some heated discussions with complainant PW-1 Mohinder Singh. Meanwhile, respondent Sita Ram appeared with a “Drati” in his hand and voluntarily caused injury on the right side of head of Mohinder Singh. Attracted by the commotion, wife of Mohinder Singh, named Kiran Devi (PW-3) and Sansar Chand (PW- 4) came to the spot and relieved Mohinder Singh from the clutches of Sita Ram and his son Naresh Kumar. 5. The matter was reported to the police. Mohinder Singh was got medically examined during the same night and formal FIR was lodged, next morning. The police after completing the investigation, presented - 3 - the Challan in the Court against the respondents. During the trial of the case, someone committed the murder of Naresh Kumar co-accused. It was a case of blind murder wherein complainant Mohinder Singh was also interrogated on suspicion. 6. Respondent Sita Ram denied the allegations against him. His defence was that he was not present on the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence as he was on duty in the school where he was employed as Chowkidar. To substantiate his plea he examined DW-1 Yash Pal, Clerk alongwith the record of his attendance. To further substantiate his plea respondent also examined DW-2 Sham Kumar, a resident of the place where the school was situated. He stated that he had seen the respondent present there between 8.00 p.m. to 9.00 a.m. Nothing has been elucidated from any of the witnesses that the respondent could not have been present at the place where the incident had taken place. The onus lies heavily on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, but the accused can probalise his case by preponderance of probabilities. 7. In the present case the respondent has been able to probalise his defence and further what emerges from the evidence is that both the parties were not - 4 - pulling on well as deceased Naresh Kumar was working in the house of uncle of complainant, Jagair Singh. Complainant had threatened him not to become close to the daughter of Jagir Singh as he belonged to a lower caste. This was the apple of contention between the parties. Further, there is also evidence on record that there were many houses of ‘Brahmin’ community in the vicinity. This commotion could have been noticed by residents thereof, but no independent witness was produced to corroborate the version of the complainant. The witnesses examined were closely related to the complainant. 8. On the close scrutiny of their evidence, I find that even minor contradictions appearing in the statements assume importance against the above factual background. The complainant in his initial complaint did not allege about the second attack and considerably improved his version when examined as witness in the Court. When confronted with the said statement he could not give plausible explanation. Thus, no implicit reliance can be placed on his version. 9. On examining the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I find that the acquittal of the respondent is based upon the - 5 - evidence on record. Therefore, the same requires no interference; as such the appeal is dismissed. 10. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of this case. April 29, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)