IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 350 of 2002. Decided on: May 22, 2009. _____________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Harbans Lal and others. …..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1?No. For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents : Ms. Anita Dogra, Advocate, vice Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J (oral): The respondents were tried and acquitted by the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for allegedly causing the injuries to Shri Sarwan Singh, while going in a marriage party. The State has assailed the acquittal of the respondents, on the ground that the learned trial court did not rightly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Heard and gone through the record. The learned trial court has disbelieved the statements of PW3 Dasaundhi Ram and PW7 Gurmeet Singh, the alleged eye witnesses, being contradictory and replete. Admittedly, the injured as well as the respondents were the members of the marriage party. They were drunk. According to injured Sarwan Singh around about 8.00 p.m., the accused persons picked up a quarrel with him and it was Dasaundhi Ram and Gurmeet Singh, who relieved him from their clutches. But he did not specify the role and names of the respondents, responsible for causing the injuries to him, whereas, in the FIR PW2 Sarwan Singh alleged that when he was returning after purchasing ‘Bidi’, Hasbans Lal and Bhagwan Singh gave beatings to him and thereafter Param Jeet Singh, Nagia Singh and Ramji Dass came there. They also gave beatings followed by Karnail Singh and Harnek Singh, who also given beatings to him. The allegations made in the FIR remained unsubstantiated. - 3 - It stands admitted thus proved on record that PW3 Dasaundhi Ram is a close relative of the injured Sarwan Singh and PW7 Gurmeet Singh is the son of Sardara Singh Ex.Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. Nagia Ram respondent was a rival candidate of Sardara Singh in the panchayat election, for the post of Pradhan. The respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 were supporters of Nagia Ram and the complainant party was the supporters of Sardara Singh. From the evidence on record, it is only by coincidence that PWs 3 and 7 aforesaid happened to be at the place of occurrence, when it took place. Both these witnesses either were relative of the injured or his friends. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the apex court in Bahal Singh vs. State of Haryana [AIR 1976 SC 2032] their version has to be viewed with suspicion. Although such a piece of evidence is not necessarily incredible or unbelievable, but it requires cautious and close scrutiny. Thus the statement of the injured, if taken into consideration with the statements - 4 - of PW3 and PW7, then both the statements become irreconcible as PW2 and PW3 stated about the single incident, inconsistent to FIR, without naming the accused persons, but PW7 stated that the injured as well as Harbans Lal and Bhagwan Singh were scuffling, leaving us at lurch as to who was the aggressor. Not only this, PW3 has unequivocally stated that all of them had taken liquor together during the day time while attending the marriage party, so in the circumstances, the evidence led by the prosecution is lame, which creates a doubt in its authenticity and the manner in which incident had taken place and in view of the fact that both the parties were belonging to the different factions, supporting different candidates, there is no cogent evidence to that the respondents had committed the offence in question, beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. Accordingly, in these circumstances, when the clarity with respect to the manner in which the incident had taken place is not there, it is quite unsafe to convict the respondent for the offence charged. Thus, for - 5 - the above reasons, the acquittal of the respondents for the offences aforesaid cannot be interfered with, as such the appeal is dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh), Judge. May 22, 2009. (Pds)