IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 324 of 2002 Date of decision: 7.1.2009 State of H.P. …. Appellant. Vs. Dalipa Ram and another. ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant-State: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, in Cr. Case No. 225-II/99/98 dated 28.12.2001, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution case in brief is that on 30.3.1997 at about 12.00 noon complainant Thakur Ram PW-3 and Met Ram PW-8 were lopping a Khirk tree at the instance of one Shri Daki Ram PW-4. The accused persons came to the spot and objected to Thakur Ram and Met Ram for cutting the tree. Accused allegedly gave a beating to Thakur Ram and one blow of the Danda was given on his left leg resulting in fracture of a bone in the left leg. It is alleged that Thakur Ram was saved by Met Ram. On the basis of this complaint made by Thakur Ram, F.I.R. Ext.PW 10/A was lodged. Thereafter matter was investigated by the police. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed. Accused were summoned. They appeared and pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On conclusion of the trial they have been acquitted. Hence the appeal by the State. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment . yes . 2 The three important witnesses in the case are PW-3 complainant Thakur Ram, PW-8 Met Ram and PW-4 Dakhi Ram. According to the complainant both he and Met Ram were up in the tree. He states that he was about 15 feet above the ground. The complainant states that the accused persons came there and accused Madrasi Ram gave the blow on his left leg. This witness also states that Dakhi Ram and Sher Singh and a large number of ladies reached the spot. PW-8 Met Ram, however, gives a different version. According to him he was in the tree and Thakur Ram was standing on the ground. According to this witness, a large number of persons had collected there and that the accused persons pelted stones on them. In cross-examination he states that in his presence no blow was given to Thakur Ram by the accused persons. He also says that Dakhi Ram was not present at the spot and was in his house. PW-4 Dakhi Ram gave a third version. According to him he alongwith his wife was present on the spot. Met Ram was on the tree while Thakur Ram was stretching a string on the ground. The statement of the complainant is entirely different to that given in the original complaint. In the original complaint, there is no mention of Dakhi Ram or Sher Singh. He categorically states that he was saved by Met Ram. According to the complainant, he was 15 feet above the ground. If that be true, it would be impossible to give a blow with Danda at this height. As per the prosecution, the length of the Danda is about 2½ feet. Even if the height of the accused is taken as 6 feet he could not reach more than 8-8½ feet above the ground. The version of the complainant is also falsified by PW-8 Met Ram who clearly states that no blow was given to the complainant in his presence. 3 The presence of Dakhi Ram on the spot is extremely doubtful. His name does not find mention in the F.I.R. Met Ram clearly states that he was not on the spot. Sher Singh was examined as PW-2. He has not supported the prosecution version. In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that there are many contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution case. The learned trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. I find no reason to interfere with the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. January 7, 2009 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™