1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.682 of 2001 Date of Decision: December 5, 2008 _______________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant. Versus Kaushal Dutt Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No For the appellant : Mr J.S.Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondent: Ms Aruna Sharma, Advocate, vice Ms.Jyotsna Rewal Advocate. Surinder Singh, J . (Oral) The State has felt aggrieved by the judgment, passed by the leaned trial court in Criminal Case No.58/2 of 99 decided on 24.2.2001, under sections 353, 332 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. In brief, the prosecution case against the respondent has been that on 9.8.1999 the complainant was a Milk Plant Assistant in Milk Chilling Plant at Bagthan. His duty was to collect the milk from the surrounding area of Bagthan. He had gone to village Chaknahal to procure milk and returned at about 8.30 a.m. to Bagthan. It is alleged that the complainant did not collect the milk of the respondent, thus he got offended and asked the reason for not collecting the milk. The complainant was busy in performing his official Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 duties in the plant office. He was given kicks and blows by the respondent. PW3 Daya Ram, driver of the milk-tanker was also sitting nearby. The complainant raised hue and cry. On this Daya Ram (PW3), Tirath Singh (PW2) and Shyama Dutt reached the spot and relieved the complainant from the clutches of the respondent. The complainant lodged the FIR Ex.PW-1/A on the same day around 4 p.m., thereafter he was medically examined by Doctor Sandeep Sharma (PW4). There was no visible injury on the person of the complainant. However, he was complaining of pain on his right iliac region. Shirt Ex.P-1 of the complainant was taken into possession by the police. Police visited the spot and prepared the site plan Ex.PW-7/A and also took into possession the duty certificate (Ex.PW6/A) and the appointment and posting order of the complainant. After completing the challan, it was presented in the court for trial of the respondent, under the aforesaid sections. Respondent was charge-sheeted to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined seven witnesses in support of its case. The respondent had raised the defense that he had lodged a complaint against the complainant earlier, in his capacity as Secretary of the Milk-Society, which caused annoyance to him and foisted a false case upon him. Respondent in his defense had examined DW1, the Secretary of the Society, to prove the earlier complainants made by him. 3 At the end of the trial, respondent was acquitted of the charges on the ground that ingredients of offences charged, were not proved and further that the complainant materially contradicted in his statement, there was previous enmity interse them and the respondent had filed complaints against him. Thus, there was no cogent and satisfactory evidence on record to prove the case against the respondent beyond a reasonable doubt. It is pertinent to note that the complainant in his complaint, given to the police, has categorically stated that while discharging his official duties in the office of the Chilling plant at Bagthan, respondent came there in the presence of Tirath Singh (PW2) and driver Daya Ram (PW3). He hurled abuses and asked him as to why he did not pick up his milk in the morning. Thereafter he started fisticuffing him, whereas complainant Tilak Ram (PW1) materially contradicted his earlier statement and deposed that while going to his office to deposit the electricity bill he was beaten up by the respondent on the above pretext. Both the statements are irreconcilable and contradictory. He did not explain as to why he gave a different version. Further PW2 Tirath Singh, who was stated to be present at the time of alleged incident did not support the case of the prosecution. Even nothing material could be extracted in his statement by the learned Public Prosecutor when cross- examined by him. PW3 Daya Ram deposed that the complainant Tilak Raj was working in his room and it was then the respondent came there and started beating him. His 4 statement is also diametrically opposite to the statement of the complainant. This witness was the driver in the milk- tanker of the chilling plant. If statements of the above witnesses are closely examined, it transpires that truth has not been spelt out by PWs 1 and 3 above and PW2 has caused a dent into their version. Further, there is nothing on record to show as to what part of official duty the complainant was discharging, therefore in view of the contradictory evidence, thick cloud of suspicion is cast on the prosecution case which becomes more dense in view of the statement of DW1, who has proved the case of the complainant by preponderance of probability, as such the learned trial court has rightly given benefit of doubt to the respondent, which is borne out from the record. Thus, the findings of the learned trial court cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, the appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. December 5, 2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (D)