Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.534 of 2001. Judgment reserved on: 25.7.2008. Dated of Decision: July 29, 2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Vikram Singh and another. ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the Respondents : Mr. M.L.Brakta, Advocate. Surinder Singh,J: The respondents were tired and acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, which has been assailed in this appeal by the State. It is contended that the learned trial court has appreciated the evidence in a slip-shod and perfunctory manner and set unrealistic standard to evaluate the direct and cogent evidence. The statements of the injured and the other witnesses were wrongly brushed-aside. In brief, the prosecution is that on 2.8.1998, complainant Om Parkash, a Carpenter by profession, was going towards Ridge from Jakhu at about 5.30 p.m., his brother PW2 Som Nath was 15 feet ahead of him. On the way, he heard some calling ‘Bhaiji’ from his back side. When the complainant turned back, the respondents started beating him with fist and kick blows. He fell unconscious. His - 2 - brother, who was ahead of his came to the spot and brought him to the house. The respondents were said to be drunk at that time. Next day, at 10.20 a.m., the matter was reported to the police. Thereafter Om Prakash was medically examined by PW7 Dr. Ganga Rawat. On his examination, the doctor noticed swelling and tenderness over the right mandible. However, there was no external injury. The complainant complained pain of the right upper molar. There was an abrasion with clotting over it and a bluish contusion over upper and lower left eye-lid and a mild swelling was also found. He was referred for the X-Ray of the mandible left side. PW5 Dr. Jitender Jingta took the X-rays Exts.P1 to P3. It was opined that there was a fracture of the Mandible, therefore, injuries No.1 and 2 were grievous. On this medical report, the police registered the FIR Ex.PW8/A under Section 325 of the Indian Peal Code on 3.8.1998. The police visited the spot and prepared the site plan Ex.PW8/B and recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completing the investigation, the challan was presented in the court for the trial. The respondents were charge-sheeted for the offence aforesaid. The learned trial court did not believe the prosecution evidence, accordingly acquitted the respondents, on the grounds that PW3 Ram Krishan, a security guard deposed that on seeing the alleged occurrence, he reported the matter to the police, but in this regard there was nothing on the file. There was also a delay in lodging the FIR. The statements of the prosecution witnesses were contradictory and further that Cashier Jagdish respondent had registered a case against PW3 aforesaid, which was pending trial, therefore, had a strong motive to implicate him. There was also no - 3 - positive and reliable evidence, therefore, the respondents were given the benefit of doubt, consequently acquitted. Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer has vehemently argued that the injured has substantiated his case, which is corroborated by the other witnesses. The report was lodged at the very next morning in the police station, there was no delay. The medical evidence corroborates the case of the prosecution, as such the judgment of the acquittal is perverse and is therefore liable to be reversed. Shri M.L. Brakta, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the findings of the acquittal. According to him, in the peculiar circumstances of the case when the alleged incident took place at 5.30 p.m. on the way from Jakhu to Ridge, the police post was nearby, even the police station was located within the town, then why the FIR was not lodged on the same day. Further, PW3 is alleged to have informed the police and they reached the spot then why the report was not lodged. The lodging of FIR next day proves the fact that the assailants were not known at the relevant time and the FIR was with due deliberation with PW3 aforesaid who was inimical towards the respondents. According to Om Prakash, he knew the respondent earlier, but their names did not figure in the FIR, which is strong circumstance weighing against the prosecution. I have given my thoughtful considerations to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record. PW1 Om Parkash complainant has deposed that when he reached near the shelter at 5.30 p.m., the respondents came from behind, and started beating him and thereafter he became unconscious. His brother ( not named ) took him to his house. The - 4 - respondents were drunk and because of the beatings, he sustained fracture of his jaw. He could not report the matter on the same day, because he was unconscious. Further according to him, Sonu and Bittta were the assailants regarding which he came to know next day, when he lodged the report Ex.PW6/A. He has categorically stated that somebody called him ‘Bhaiji’ from behind, when he looked back, he saw some person to whom he did not know nor he had ever seen him. He asked him (PW1) as to why he was looking back, whether he would look back again, then started fisty cuffing and giving kick blows. He fell unconscious and was taken by his brother to nearby shed and then to his house. He further stated that though he did not know the assailants who were drunk, but could identify them. The same version was reproduced in the FIR. No identification parade was ever conducted by the police, which was necessary in the peculiar circumstances of this case. There is also nothing on record to show that respondents were also addressed as Sonu and Bitta. In cross-examination, he has admitted that there was no enmity with the respondents. According to him Ram Krishan (PW3) had intervened when he was being beaten up, but his name did not find mentioned in the FIR. PW2 Som Nath is brother of the complainant. He has stated that he was ahead of his brother (PW1) and he did not know as to who had initiated the quarrel. When he reached the spot, his brother was unconscious and the assailants were not there. According to him there were about seven persons present on the spot but did not give the name of any of them. He also stated that none of them present there knew the assailants, nor they try to find out as to who were the assailants, their names were also not disclosed by the - 5 - shopkeeper, who was running a tea-stall nearby. He further stated that when they went to the police station next day, the police told them to verify the names of the assailants. His statement goes contrary to the statement of PW1 Om Prakash on material particulars. PW3 Ram Krishan, a security guard posted in the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla stated that when he reached near the tea-stall of Roshan Lal, he saw respondent giving beatings to the complainant and both the respondents were drunk. He informed the police telephonically. The respondents fled away from the spot. In cross-examination, he has stated that earlier Jagdish respondent has lodged a case against him regarding giving beatings to him, which is pending in the court. When he informed the police reporting room, Lakkar Bazar police reached there but at that time complainant and his brother had left for their house. He further stated that the respondent Jagdish had hit the complainant with Tiffin, which fact he did not disclose to the police earlier. If this witness had informed the police and knew the respondents, why the report was not lodged. This query remains unanswered. Further there were 2/3 shops as stated by PW3 above and tea stall of Roshan Lal was also there, Roshan Lal has also not been examined to lend strength to the prosecution case. PW4 Satish Kumar has also not supported the case of the prosecution. According to him, no quarrel had taken place in the front of his shop, nor he had seen the respondents giving beatings to the complainant, however he saw the complainant being taken by his brother in an injured condition. - 6 - On the critical examination of the aforesaid evidence, it transpires that it is only PW3 Ram Krishan, who is alleged to have identified the assailants, but his testimony does not inspire confidence. He was already in litigation with respondent Jagdish. He is not the resident of that area where the alleged incident had taken place at that time. How he had appeared on the seen, remains a mystery. He was posted as security guard in IGMC, Shimla. The report was lodged next day by the complainant wherein names of the assailants were not found mentioned whereas PW2 aforesaid has stated that police told them to verify their names. The complainant and his brother did not identify the assailants and their identification parade was never conducted. The persons whose shops /tea-stalls were nearby either did not support the case or were not examined in the court. Thus, the entire evidence of the prosecution is shrouded by suspicious circumstances. Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly given the benefit of doubt to the respondent as there was no legal evidence to support the prosecution case worth inspiring confidence. Since I did not find any perversity in this appeal, it is accordingly dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. July 29, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.