IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 267 of 2003. Date of Decision: 12.7.2010. _______________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Appellant. Versus. Inder Singh and another. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?No. For the appellant : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondent. : Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the acquittal passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Mandi acquitting the respondents for the offences under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 12.3.2000 at around 10.30 a.m., complainant Sher Singh was assaulted by accused Inder Singh with an axe (Ext.P-1) causing grievous injuries to him, as the complainant asked Inder Singh not to trespass in his fields. Thereupon a quarrel ensued between the complainant and the respondents. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Respondent-Inder Singh held him by his arms and accused Pushap Raj inflicted injuries on the complainant with an axe which belongeds to his father. Ext.PW9/A is the medico legal report of the injured which shows incised wound on right thigh 12x3 cm (spindle shape with bleeding). 3. On the entirety of the evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the petitioners holding that the blood stained clothes of the complainant were not taken into possession. The Court also holds that Ext.P-1 which is axe was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW2/B in the presence of two witnesses, namely, PW-2 Smt. Vidya Devi and PW5 Smt. Rekha Devi. Though this axe was identified by complainant- Sher Singh but PW7 Smt. Pamma Devi and PW8 Ramesh Chand have not supported the case of the prosecution although they were the witnesses to the recovery memo Ext.PW2/B. 4. This axe was purportedly produced by the wife of complainant-Sher Singh which was identified by PW-2 Smt. Vidya Devi. Adverting to the evidence of the two witnesses, the learned court holds and rightly so that so far as PW8 Ramesh Chand is concerned, he says that he could not identify the axe produced by the complainant. PW-8 Ramesh Chand has been declared hostile and there is nothing in his cross-examination which would establish that the axe (Ext.P- 1) was, in fact, recovered from the spot, as alleged. The court holds that there are some contradictions in the evidence of 3 the other prosecution witnesses regarding the presence on the spot. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the court was not correct in ignoring the evidence of PW-9 Dr. Sushma which clearly establishes that the complainant was injured. According to her this was conclusive evidence of the fact that the injuries had, in fact, been caused by the accused. This submission requires to be rejected outright as the factum of injuries is one fact but their causation is altogether different. What had to be established by the prosecution is that the injury which had, in fact, been caused by the accused. This fact is negatived by two factors on the record (i) that the clothes of the complainant which he was wearing at the time of the incident have admittedly become blood stained were not produced and (iii) the recovery of the axe remains an obscure mystery. 6. In these circumstances, looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the learned trial Court was correct in dismissing the case against the petitioners. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioners are discharged. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. July 12, 2010(R)