IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 236 of 2003. Date of Decision: 13th May, 2010. _______________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus Kahan Singh and others ..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) Acquittal of the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 452, 325, 323, 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, passed in Criminal Case No.229-II of 1999/1998, decided on 23rd September, 2002, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Baijnath, has been assailed in this appeal by the State. 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 3. In short, the prosecution story can be stated thus. Admittedly, the daughter of Kahan Singh was Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - eloped by PW Sobh Singh, who was later taken back and married to accused/respondent Munshi Ram on 3rd April, 1998. They were attacked on 6th April, 1998, which fact was also reported to the police. As per the defence version, that was the reason to counter the allegation and foist this case against them by the complainant party, whereas, the prosecution case goes on like this that on 6th April, 1998 PW Sobh Singh alongwith his family members was present in his house, the respondents gathered in front of the house and started pelting stones on its roof. Due to which some slates of the roof got broken. Thereafter the respondents entered into the house of the complainant by breaking open the door and gave beatings to him. It is alleged that the respondents were armed with Dandas and bat and they also roughed up the other members of the family, namely Milkhi Ram, Mangat Ram and Soni Devi. Grievous hurt is alleged to have been caused to PW-1 Milkhi Ram and minor injuries to the others. Police was informed and Sobh Singh made the statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the police, on the basis of which FIR was registered under the aforesaid Sections. 4. Injured Sobh Singh, Mangat Ram, Milkhi Ram and Soni Devi were got medically examined. The - 3 - statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After completing the investigation, Challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondents. 5. To prove its case the prosecution examined its witnesses. Respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in defence they also examined DW-1 MHC Subhash Chand to prove the fact that respondent Kahan Singh had also lodged a report Ext.D.1 with respect to the incident which took place on the same day whereby he alleged that the complainant party had attacked upon them and damaged their house on account of old enmity. At the end of the trial, the respondents were acquitted on the grounds that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and also that the complainant party nourished ill-will against them on account of elopement of the daughter of Kahan Singh by Sobh Singh. 6. PW-12 Sobh Singh stated having given beatings by 10/12 persons, out of which only six were the respondents. The prosecution has not given any explanation as to why the other assailants were not arrayed as accused in the instant case. Further, Sobh Singh stated that after pelting the stones on his house - 4 - the respondents entered inside the room and gave beatings to him. He also stated that when the stones were being pelted by the respondents no member of his family came out. But his father Milkhi Ram when examined as PW-1 gave a different version. He did not say that the respondents had given beatings to Sobh Singh, as alleged but stated that the respondents dragged Sobh Singh out of the house and was given beatings outside in the courtyard. He completely changed the scene of occurrence causing a major dent in the prosecution case. 8. Further, PW-2 Mangat Ram who is said to be present in the room also stated that Milkhi Ram was given beatings in the courtyard and stated that there were houses of Gopal Dass (PW-9) and Piar Chand including some other persons in the vicinity, and its residents had also witnessed the alleged occurrence. Piar Chand was not examined, whereas said Gopal Dass did not support the case of the prosecution, but he categorically stated that the respondents neither pelted the stones on the house of the complainant nor gave beatings to him as alleged. 9. PW-6 Soni Devi is one of the family members of the complainant party, who also alleged to have sustained injuries. She expressed her ignorance about - 5 - the incident, although she stated that Sobh Singh was given beatings by Munshi Ram, but did not state about the others. Thereafter she also made clear cut diversion that she did not know as to who had given beatings to whom. PW-3 Lata Devi stated that she did not know anything as to what happened outside as she was sleeping in the room. 10. Although, PW-8 Doctor J.K. Kaul stated that PW-1 Milkhi Ram was having injuries on his person which fact has also not been denied by the respondents, but according to Milkhi Ram with the same breadth stated that he sustained these injuries by a fall inside the room which fact has also been substantiated by PW-6 Soni Devi. 11. The above contradictions appearing in the statements of the witnesses cannot be taken lightly in view of the fact that the respondents had also lodged report to the police with respect to the incident which had taken place with them on the same day wherein it has been alleged that it was the complainant party who had attacked on them and also that they had previous enmity. The prosecution witnesses have further admitted in so many words that PW 12 Sobh Singh eloped the daughter of respondent Kahan Singh and later after three days of the alleged incident she was married to - 6 - Munshi Ram. So in this fact situation the story of the prosecution becomes highly doubtful and the statements of the witnesses cannot be used to convert the acquittal of the respondents into conviction, as such the appeal lacks merits and is dismissed. 12. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of this case. May 13, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)