IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 176 of 2002 Date of decision: 16.12.2008 State of H.P. …. Appellant. Vs. Moti Ram and others. ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant-State: Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy.Advocate General. For the respondents: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur in Cr. Case Challan No. 64-II/97 dated 4.7.2001, whereby he has acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 451, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Sudesh Kumari approached the police on 23.4.1997. Her statement was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C on the basis of which F.I.R. Ext. PW-1/A was lodged. The complainant in her first version given to the police alleged that on the previous night her husband had gone to his sister’s house in Punjab. There was a function in the village. She had attended the same in the house of Dhandu Ram. She returned to her house at 12 mid-night alongwith her children. At that time, the accused Moti Ram, Hazara Singh and Chhajju Ram accosted her and entered her room. They were all in a drunken condition. The accused persons caught hold of her and gave her fist blows and also beat her. All three threatened to kill her. She and her children raised a hue and cry and the people of the Mohalla gathered on the spot. She was 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment . yes. 2 saved by Chhindpal S/o Milkhi Ram. Kaushalaya Devi, Durga Dass, Lal Chand, etc. also came to the spot. They had all witnessed the incident. According to her, she had suffered injuries which were not visible. Her shirt was also torn in the fight. She also stated that there is some dispute between her family and the accused. Since it was dark at night she did not come to the police station. While appearing in Court, the complainant embellished and exaggerated her version. She states that she was saved by Chhind Lal, Durga Dass, Lalu Ram and Kaushlya. She stated that the accused tore open her shirt and she was left naked. This fact was not stated by her in her complaint. Chhind Lal was examined by the prosecution but did not support the prosecution. He was declared hostile but nothing substantial has been extracted in his cross-examination by the public prosecutor. The other witness to the incident who has been examined by the prosecution is PW-2 Durga Dass. At the outset, it may be mentioned that he is the father-in-law of the complainant. He admittedly came to the spot about half an hour of the incident. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on his statement. The prosecution has failed to give any plausible explanation as to why Kaushlya and Lal Chand, who were the independent witnesses, were neither associated with the investigation nor examined by the prosecution. The MLC Ext.PW-3/A does not disclose any injury on the person of the complainant. She has only complained of body pain but no external injury noticed. It cannot be believed that when a lady is beaten up by three grown up man, who also gave her fist blows, she would not suffer any external injury. Therefore, the medical evidence also does not support the ocular version. 3 In view of the above discussion, the judgement of the learned Sub Judge is absolutely correct and calls for no interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged. December 16, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™