IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.572 of 2003 Date of decision: 7.7.2010 ------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. Appellant Versus Om Parkash and another. Respondents The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the Appellant: Mr.Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja,J This is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Baijnath dated 30.7.2003 vide which, the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 18.5.2001 around 11.30 P.M. a report was lodged with the police Ex.PW-8/A in which the complainant alleged that he along with his brother Sunit Kumar were going to the house of his uncle Majnu Ram. Respondent No.2 met him on the way, caught him by neck. In the meanwhile, Sunit Kumar had gone ahead and had entered the house of his uncle Mauji Ram. Raj Kumar respondent also came there and gave him abuses. Respondent No.1 caught hold of him Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? from the collar and Raj Kumar Respondent gave a blow of Koka of iron on his head and blood started oozing out. The complainant raised hue and cry and the second blow was given on his right arm and he suffered minor injuries and on hearing his cries his brother Sunit Kumar came there and rescued him. The accused persons ran away. He along with Sunit Kumar his cousin, came to lodge a report with the police. After medical examination, FIR was registered and after investigation challan was filed as against the respondents under the sections mentioned above who were tried by the learned trial Court leading to their acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the occurrence has been mentioned to have taken place on 18.5.2001 and the report was lodged at 11.30 P.M. on the same night. The complainant appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and came up with the plea that the date of occurrence was 17.5.2001. He was specific that this was the date of occurrence. He stated that Om Parkash respondent caught him from the neck and Raj Kumar respondent gave a blow on his head with a sharp edged weapon in his hand. The second blow was given on his left arm. He raised an alarm and his brother Sunit Kumar came and rescued him. There is no mention of any other person at the spot or any other person who came to the spot after the occurrence. He denied the specific suggestion that the report was lodged on 18.5.2001 at 11.30 P.M. He stated that his medical examination was conducted on the same day at 1.00 P.M. or 1.30 P.M. at Baijnath hospital. He further stated that he identified Drat Ex.P-1 on the next day. It is clear from a perusal of his statement made to the police that he was hit on his head with a Toka, but while appearing in the witness box he came up with the statement that it was a sharp edged weapon with which the blow was inflicted and he identified the Drat to be the same. He admitted that Drat and Toka are different things. 5. PW-2 has also stated that he had gone inside the house of his uncle. On hearing the noise of his brother and found that his brother was having injuries and blood was oozing out. He raised an alarm and many persons came to the spot and the accused ran away. He had not witnessed the occurrence and had not stated that any blow was given in his presence. He also stated that the date of occurrence was 17.5.2001 around 8.00 P.M. It is contradictory to the report lodged by the complainant. 6. PW-3 Karam Singh has also stated that the occurrence took place on 17.5.2001 which is also contrary to the case of the prosecution that the date of occurrence was 18.5.2001. He has not given the date by approximation but he is specific and this witness had gone to the spot on hearing the cries and found that the blood was coming out from the person of the complainant as a result of the injuries sustained by him. 7. PW-4 Urmila Devi has stated that the police came to the spot on 18.5.2010. PW-5 Majnu Ram stated that the occurrence took place on 17.5.2010 and he stated that he reached the spot and found the injury on the head of the complainant and blood was oozing out from the injury. PW-6 Sher Singh has stated that on 17.6.2001 around 10.00 P.M. Pradhan Tilak Raj had called him at the house of the accused and he visited the spot and found cross arguments in between the accused and the complainant. 8. PW-7 Dr. Ravinder Kumar had conducted the medical examination of the complainant on 18.5.2001 and had given the duration of injury within 12 hours which cannot be said to be incorrect since the occurrence took place on 18.5.2010 at 8.00 P.M. He admitted in cross examination that the injuries could not be inflicted with Toka and he is specific in this behalf. The weapon of offence Ex.P-1 was never shown to him. 9. From the above, it is clear that with regard to occurrence there is material contradiction in the statement of the complainant and the other prosecution witnesses. PW-2 Sunit Kumar who was also present nearby but he did not support the version of the complainant with regard to the date of occurrence or the injuries. 10. Keeping in view the contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution case, the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court holding that the guilt of the respondents was not established beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 11. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents stand discharged. 7th July, 2010 (V.K.Ahuja),J. (SDS)