IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.122 of 2002. Judgment reserved on:12.12.2008. Date of decision: 1st January, 2009. State of H.P. .. ..Appellant Versus Jisso @ Sukhdev Singh and others . ..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Appellant: Mr.R.M.Bisht, Dy.A.G. For respondents: M/s.Bhuvnesh Sharma & Ramakant Sharma, Advocates. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. This Appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. dated 22.8.2001 whereby he has acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 451, 323, 324, 506/34 IPC. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 20.12.1994 complainant Kamli Devi lodged a report that she is a permanent resident of Larath and is earning her livelihood by working as labourer. According to her on 20.12.1994 at about 2.30 p.m. the three accused persons viz. Prithi Singh, Jisso and Lajo started cutting the fence adjoining her fields. On seeing this her sister Pawna asked Prithi that he should not cut the fence towards the side of complainant’s field. On hearing …2… this, all the three accused felt very angry and started hurling filthy abuses towards complainant and her sister. They entered the court-yard of the house of complainant Lajo gave a blow of the sickle on her daughter’s head. When she tried to rescue her daughter from the clutches of the accused, then Lajo gave a sickle blow on the left palm of the complainant due to which she received an incised wound on her head. Her daughter also received injuries. According to the complainant Prithi and Disso also gave beatings with fists blows as well as sticks. Her sister Pawna and the father of the complainant saved them from the clutches of the accused. All the accused ran away from the spot after threatening the complainant with dire consequences. On the basis of this report, FIR was registered and investigation conducted. After completion of the investigation the challan was filed in Court and the accused sent up for trial. They have been acquitted vide the impugned judgment. Hence, the appeal by the State. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined a number of witnesses. The complainant Kamli was examined as PW-1. She stated that on the date of occurrence when she along with her daughter was working in her house and her sister Pawna was applying cow dung to the courtyard, then the accused Prithi started cutting the bushes marking the boundary of the field. …3… Pawna objection to the same. Then the accused threatened to slap her. The other two accused Lajo and Jisso also started hurling filthy abuses. Shrestha, daughter of the complainant objected to the same. Then Lajo accused came inside the court-yard of the complainant’s house and gave a sickle blow on the head of Shrestha. When the complainant tried to save Shrestha then Lajo gave one blow of the sickle on the right hand of the complainant. Jisso gave blows of danda to Shrestha and Lajo threw stones on the complainant and she fell down. Prithi also hit Pawna and resultantly her tooth became loose. He also hit Pawna with the Sanga used to raise the boundary bushes. Reshma Devi saved them from the accused. Thereafter she reported the matter to the police. In cross examination she states that when her daughter Shrestha was given the sickle blow, blood came out and fell on her clothes. She has been confronted with the complaint Ext.PW-1/A wherein injury on the head of Shrestha is not mentioned. According to her she had also informed the doctor that she had received stone blow on her chest. She was also confronted with the FIR where there is no mention that Prithi hit Pawna with a sanga. According to her the clothes of Pawna were torn with Sanga. She admits that there are number of other houses near her house. She also admits that the noise from her house can be heard from these houses. According to her the fight continued …4… for about half an hour but nobody came to the spot. They were all watching from their own houses. Reshma Devi is PW-2. It would be pertinent to mention that no reliance can be placed on the statement of Reshma Devi since in the first information report there is no mention of Reshma Devi. In that report the complainant had clearly stated that she was saved by Pawna and her father. If Reshma Devi was present her name would have been mentioned in the initial FIR. In fact the statement of Reshma Devi is quite contradictory to the statement of the complainant and other eye- witnesses. Shrestha Devi has supported the prosecution story. She also states that Lajo gave her sickle blow on her head and when her mother intervened then the mother suffered injuries on both her hands but the cut injury was on the right hand. Thereafter, both Jisso and Prithi came to the spot and beat the complainant party with stones and sticks. In cross examination she states that accused was carrying darati, a danda and sanga. She was confronted with her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where it was not so recorded. She states that her mother Kamli Devi had become unconscious when she was hit by the stones. According to her when the incident occurred only Kamli Devi and Pawna from the complainant side were present along with the three accused and nobody else came there. She admits that there are houses of some other persons near her house …5… but according to her these persons are conniving with the accused. Statement of Pawna is to the similar effect. Dr.Sanjay Mahajan, PW-7 had examined Shrestha Devi. He found a lacerated wound on her scalp and abrasions on the right side of her chest. Both the injuries were simple. He opined that the first injury could have been possible with a sickle. He also examined Pawna Devi and found five simple injuries on her person. The suggestion put to this witness in the cross-examination is that these injuries could have been caused by a fall. In respect of injury No.3 Dr.Sanjay Mahajan referred Pawna to Dr.Santosh Mahajan who found that the left lower central incisor tooth of Pawna Devi has slight movement. It is obvious that some occurrence did take place and an altercation took place between the parties. However, there are some glaring contradictions in the prosecution version. The first of these is that according to the complainant they were given a blow with a darati i.e. sickle used for cutting grass, however, rough drawing of the sickle Ext.PW-10/B as well as the other material on record clearly show that the same was a darat and not a darati. Another flow in the prosecution story is the induction of Reshma PW-2. She was definitely not present when the occurrence took place and she has been introduced later on. This also indicates that the investigation was not fair and …6… proper. According to Kamli Devi she suffered injury on her chest when one of the accused threw heavy stones weighing about 5 to 6 kg. on her. But no such injury has been proved on record. There are other contradictions also. In the first information report, there is no mention that Lajo gave a blow of the sickle on the head of Shrestha. This was introduced only later on. If a blow with the sickle had been given there was no reason why the complainant would not have mentioned this in her original complaint. It is also not disputed that the relations between the parties were not cordial and there was a long standing dispute in respect of the boundary which is also the cause of the altercation in the present case. In view of the aforesaid contradictions and the fact that no independent witnesses were associated with the investigation reliance cannot be placed on the sole testimony of the injured persons. As already held above the investigation in the case has also not been fair. Keeping all the facts into consideration, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. Ist January, 2009. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge