Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.356 of 2003. Dated of Decision: August 27, 2010. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Bashir Din and another. ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Himat Negi, Advocate, vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral) : The respondents were tried and acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The State felt aggrieved, hence instant appeal has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 3. In short, the prosecution story can be summarized thus. Smt. Reshmo, a niece of PW4 Moula Baksh was married to Hussain Mohammed. Since they did not pull on well, as such on 21st July, 1997 they sought divorce mutually before the local Panchayat. It was also - 2 - decided that her husband Hussain Mohammed would return all the dowry articles on the same day. 4. In the evening, PW4 Moula Baksh engaged a Tractor of PW6 Gulam Rasool accompanied by PW5 Sharif Din went to bring the dowry articles. On their return, it had become quite dark and the lights of the Tractor were not in working condition, as such, Sharif Din was showing the way to the driver of the Tractor by walking on foot ahead of the Tractor. Suddenly, respondents came there and gave ‘danda’ blow on the left arm and left thigh of Moula Baksh, who was sitting in the Tractor. The assailants fled away in darkness. 5. The matter was reported to the police next day in the afternoon. Moula Baksh was medically examined by PW1 Dr. Indu Bhardwaj. He found the injuries on the right elbow joint and right thigh of the complainant. He was advised X-ray. The x-ray was taken in the hospital. PW8 Dr. R.K. Mahajan opined that there was fracture of right ulna, thus FIR Ex.PW9/A was formally registered in the Police Station under Section 325 of the Indian Penal code on 22nd July, 1997. 6. Police visited the spot, prepared the site plan Ex.PW10/A, arrested the respondents and effected the recovery of dandas. Challan was presented in the court - 3 - for the trial of the respondents. They were accordingly charge-sheeted, they denied the charges framed against them. At the end of trial, they were acquitted on the grounds that there was unexplained delay of 16 hours in lodging the FIR and there were material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 7. The alleged incident took place on 21.7.1997 around 7.30 p.m. The FIR was lodged on 22nd July, 1997 around 1.15 p.m. The delay of about 16 hours has neither been explained by the complainant nor by the prosecution. Although, delay itself is not enough to reject the prosecution case, but it gives an inclination to examine it more closely as to why there was delay and what is its over all effect on the probity of the case of the prosecution. 8. The first glaring defect which was noticed is, the complainant Moula Baksh who was injured had initially stated in the FIR that he was attacked by the respondents with the dandas and he sustained injuries on the left arm and left leg i.e. on the thigh portion, but stands contradicted by the statement of the doctor, who categorically stated that there was an injury on the right arm and right thigh of the injured. He did not notice any injury on the left side of the body nor the complainant - 4 - stated having received any blow on his right side of the body. Therefore, the injuries, which were found on the person of complainant (PW4) could not be connected with the alleged attack. 9 Secondly, the initial story propounded by the complainant in terms of report Ex.PW7/A goes it to show that on their return, it was complete dark and the lights of the Tractor were out of order and PW5 Sharif Din was going ahead of the Tractor showing them the way, but when examined in the Court PW4 Moula Baksh stated that only one side light of the Tractor was out of order and Sharif Din was showing the way by walking ahead of it. 10. Significantly, PW4 Moula Baksh in cross- examination stated that it was pitch dark and he identified one of the respondents by his pajama and another from his jacket, but he did not specify to which assailant was wearing the pajama and who was in the jacket. 11. PW5 Sharif Din stated that it was pitch dark, but he did not say as to how it was possible and how he could identify the respondents. Further the statement of PW6 Gulam Rasool is also not free from doubt, inasmuch how could he identify in the pitch dark that one of the respondents was having handle of spade in his hand. It is - 5 - also to be noticed that distance of the Police Station from the place of incident is only 3/4 kilo meter, what prevented them to report the matter to police without loss of time. 12. PW1 Dr. Indu Bhardwaj stated that the injuries in question could be caused due to fall. It assumes importance. Had the complainant been attacked by the respondents, there was no reason for the complainant to intimate the police expeditiously. The delay in lodging the report with the police can be attributed to due deliberations and consultation to foist a case against the respondent being relatives of Shri Hussain Mohammed. 13. The prosecution in fact has failed to prove the case beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, which on the above set of evidence was rightly given to the accused and the findings of acquittal are borne out from the record, which require no interference in this case. The appeal is without merit, therefore, dismissed. 14. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by each of them at any stage during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. August 27, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.