IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 77 of 2000 Decided on: 21.9.2010 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Roop Singh & Ors. ..…Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. For the respondents : Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate, vice Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. R.B. Misra, J. (Oral) The present criminal appeal has come-up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted, in reference to the impugned judgment dated 16.8.1999, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 11-S/7 of 1998, whereby respondents-accused have been acquitted for the offences, under Sections 323 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The prosecution story is that Issa Mohammad, resident of village Lakhanpur, Tehsil Nalagarh was taking his 25 buffaloes for Narkanda. On way, buffaloes were drinking water from a pond where respondents-accused Inder Singh and Roop Singh and their 3-4 sons assaulted Issa Mohammad and his son Lal Hussain with danda and threw stones at them and on intervention of Bali Mohammad and one Alam Issa Mohammad and his son Lal Hussain were saved. On this, FIR No. 75 of 1997 was registered in Police Station, Theog. Lal Hussain was medically examined and following injuries were noticed:- “1) Lacerated wound on the scalp in frontal region size 3 cm. x 2 cm. x .5 cm. bleeding profusedly irregular margins containing debris. 2) Lacerated wound on the scalp in the parietal region on the right side (1 cm. x .5 cm.) irregular in shape bleeding profusedly. 3) Multiple abrasion on the right side of the chest oblique in direction mostly or scratches variety reddish in colour. He was referred to the Radiologist for x-ray of his skull and chest, but the x-ray examination did not show fracture of any bone. The doctor opined that at the time of examination, Lal Hussain was unconscious and not oriented to time, place and person and was in hypovolaemic shock and but for medical aid, he could have died.” 3. Issa Mohammad, the father of Lal Hussain, was also medically examined who has suffered multiple abrasions on the lateral aspect of his left lower leg oblique in direction and the injury was opined to be of simple nature. After investigation, 3 respondents-accused were charged for the aforesaid offences and case was committed to the Sessions Court. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses including injured Lal Hussain PW-4, injured Issa Mohammad PW-3, eye witness Bali Mohammad PW-5, Dr. Dalip Tegta PW-6 and Assistant Sub Inspector Hukam Singh PW-7, whereas the respondents- accused through their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. 5. Injured Lal Hussain PW-4 has made the statement that when he observed that respondents-accused were giving beating to his father Issa Mohammad, he tried to intervene and told the respondents-accused that he and his father were prepared to compensate them for the damage caused to their crops by their buffaloes. Respondents-accused freed his father and started giving beating to him and he ran away from the spot towards Theog but he was chased on a scooter by respondents- accused Inder Singh and Sanjeev and deceased Partap Singh, however, was overpowered near a school and from there above named two respondents-accused and deceased Partap Singh started back with him towards the place where his father had been assaulted. When they reached near a Crusher, the two respondents-accused and deceased Partap Singh started giving beating to him and Partap Singh then dealt a blow of Danda on his head, as a result of which he became unconscious. Other two respondents-accused hit him with pieces of stone. His maternal Uncle Bali Mohammad and cousin Alam and father Issa Mohammad reached on the spot and rescued him. 4 6. PW-5 Bali Mohammad, the maternal uncle of injured Lal Husssain, has stated that on 21.5.1997 while he was going with his buffaloes around 6.00 P.M. he was present at Gujar Dera, Isssa Mohammad took his buffaloes to a water tank to drink and when buffaloes were drinking water, Roop Singh respondent-accused and his sons assaulted Issa Mohammad. PW-5 rushed to the spot to rescue Issa Mohammad. On reaching the spot, he noticed that that respondent-accused caught hold of Lal Husssan and then with the help of Rafiq Mohammad PW-5 succeeded in getting Lal Hussain released from the clutches of respondents-accused. Respondent-accused Roop Singh and his sons ran after Lal Hussan and they overpowered him near a school, there were six-seven person who chased and overpowered Lal Husssain and took him back and on way beaten Lal Husssain. Issa Mohammad, who lodged the report with the police has denied that the cause of dispute was that his buffaloes had strayed into the cabbage field of Roop Singh respondent-accused as his son PW-4 Lal Hussain said in examination-in-chief that he had offered to compensate the respondents-accused for the damage caused to their crops by their buffaloes and pleaded with the respondents-accused to spare the life of his father. This shows that Issa Mohammad has not come out with whole truth. 7. Deposition of PW-4 Lal Hussain is at variance with the medico legal evidence. Lal Hussain has deposed that a number of blows were given on his head and other parts of the body with Dandas and stones but doctor PW-6 Dalip Tegta noticed only two lacerated wounds on his head and a few 5 abrasions on the chest. If number of blows were dealt with Dandas and Stones on the head and other parts of the body, many more injuries would have been noticed on his person. The incident alleged to have taken place on national high way where road is quite busy. When Lal Hussain was having profusedly bleeding injuries he could have been immediately rushed to the hospital. We also notice that genesis of the occurrence was not correct but what has been asserted by the defence that the buffaloes of Issa Mohammad and Lal Husssain had damaged the cabbage crop of respondent-accused and it appears that respondent-accused Roop Singh had demanded compensation for such damage and that is why the witness has stated that he pleaded with Roop Singh to spare the life of his father and that he and his father would pay the compensation to the damage caused to the crop of respondent-accused. Respondent-accused Roop Singh, per admission by PW-3 Issa Mohammad and PW-4 Lal Hussain suffered bleeding injury which appears to have been caused to him by Issa Mohammad and Lal Hussain. The explanation offered by Issa Mohamad for the injury was that respondent-accused Roop Singh scuffled and both of them fell down the edge of the road is not correct. It may also be seen that house of respondent-accused Roop Singh is situated only a distance of 100 metres from the place of occurrence as per deposition of PW-7 Hukam singh, Investigating Officer, so the presumption is that they heard the cries of their father. Parpat Singh deceased and respondent-accused Inder Singh rushed to the spot to rescue their father cannot be said that they had the common intention to make murderous assault upon the injured. 6 Evidence regarding the number of persons, who allegedly chased Lal Husssain and gave him severe beatings is also contradictory while PW-4 has only stated that there persons respondent- accused Inder Singh, Sanjeev and deceased Partap Singh chased and over powered and gave beating to him while taking him back to the place where the incident had started, according to PW-5 Bali Mohammad, Lal Hussain was chased, over powered and beaten up by six-seven young boys. According to this witness, respondent-accused Roop Singh and his sons were among those persons who ran after Lal Hussain. This part of his statement is also incorrect because Lal Hussain and his father Issa Mohammad do not say that respondent-accused Roop Singh also gave a chase to Lal Hussain. 8. In view of the apparent contradictions, improbabilities and inconsistencies and on analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, learned Sessions Judge has rightly arriving at the finding that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered view, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the respondents-accused. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is, therefore, dismissed. 9. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondent-accused are hereby discharged. (R.B. Misra), Judge. September 21, 2010 (V.K. Sharma), Judge. (vs)