IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 126 of 2003 Date of decision: 25.08.2009 State of H.P. …. Appellant. Vs. Partap Chand and others ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the appellant: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents Mr. Ambika Kotwal, vice Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, dated 1.9.1999 in Criminal Case No. 3-II/97, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 2.6.1996 at about 9.30 p.m accused Pratap Chand, his wife Punya Devi and his son Suresh Kumar in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused hurt with a drat and fist blows to the complainant Prakash Chand, who is the real brother of Pratap Chand. Pratap Chand lodged a complaint with the police and accordingly matter was investigated and after investigation challan was filed. The accused on appearance did not plead guilty and claimed trial. They have been acquitted. Hence, the present appeal. I have heard Shri Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General on behalf of the State and Ms. Ambika Kotwal, learned vice counsel for the respondent. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment. Yes. 2 Only two witnesses are relevant for decision of the case. Prakash Chand, complainant, appeared as PW-3. According to him, when he was sitting at his house on 2.6.1996 at about 9.30 p.m then Pratap Chand, accused came to his house and questioned him as to why he had felled a Tali tree. He replied that he had felled the tree since he wanted to use it for preparing Kothley. In the meantime, Punya Devi, wife of Pratap Chand, Suresh son of Pratap Chand also came and hurled abuses. Punya Devi was armed with Danda and gave Danda blows to the complainant. Pratap Chand then went to his house, came back armed with a Drat and gave a Drat blow to the complainant. Suresh hurled a stone at the complainant. As a result of the beatings, complainant suffered various injuries. He was rescued by his wife and children. Thereafter, he was got medically examined and reported the matter to the police. He also identified the stone Ext.P-1, Drat Ext.P-2 and Danda Ext.P-3 being weapons of offence. He admits that the tree in question was felled by him on 1.6.1996 but according to him the accused had not objected to the same. He also admits that he had felled the tree from land which is recorded jointly in the name of both the brothers. PW-4 Nimmo Devi is the wife of the complainant. According to her, only a branch of the tree was cut by her husband on 26th May, 1996 to which the accused raised objection on 2.6.1996. She also states that on 2.6.1996 when her husband was sitting in the Varandah the accused came and questioned him as to why he had cut the tree. Then Punya caught hold of her husband by his vest. Suresh also reached the spot and caught hold of her husband and then Pratap Chand gave a drat blow near the left ear of her husband. Suresh gave 3 blow of a stone. When the witness tried to rescue the complainant, she was also given beatings. There are obvious contradictions in the statement of these two important witnesses. Whereas, according to the complaint, he cut the tree on 1st June, 1996. According to his wife, only a branch of the tree was cut and that too on 26th May, 1996. Whereas, according to the complainant, Pratap Chand went back to his house to get the drat, according to Nimmo Devi at the time when the occurrence took place, Prakash Chand was already armed with a Drat. The complainant states that Punya Devi gave blows with Danda but Nimmo Devi is silent in this regard. Nimmo Devi states that she was beaten up by the accused but the complainant has not made even a whisper in this regard. Another important fact is that the weapons of offence, i.e. the Drat, the Danda and the stone were not recovered at the instance of the accused but were produced by Nimmo Devi. According to her, she snatched the Drat and Danda and kept it in her house. There is virtually no evidence on record to support her version. The learned trial Court in view of the various contradictions on record rightly acquitted the accused. I see no reason to interfere in the judgement of the learned trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. 25th August, 2009 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge.