IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.P (M). No. 828/2009 Date of decision: 31. 3. 2010 Avtar Singh …applicant/appellant Versus Ruldu Ram and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the appellant: Mr. Viks Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate Surinder Singh (Oral) Applicant/appellant has sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondents, passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No. 10-II/2004 decided on 8.6.2009. Heard and gone through the record. Prosecution case, as emerges from the evidence on record, can be stated thus. Applicant/appellant had a dispute with his wife and his wife had filed the maintenance application at Pathankot. Respondents are also from the side of in-laws of the applicant-appellant. It emerges from the evidence that the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - respondents had been attending the court along with the wife of the applicant/appellant. The matter was reconciled inter se the applicant and his wife. It is alleged that thereafter, i.e., on 27.3.2004, respondents caught-hold of the applicant at 6.30 p.m. near Chaunch Khad. Out of them, Ramesh and Puran were carrying knives and asked the applicant to part with the his gold bracelet and money which he was carrying in his purse and other accused persons, namely, Dev Raj, Parkash and Santokh Raj caught- hold of the applicant and gave beating to him and threatened him with dire consequence. He raised alarm. CW2 Kuldeep Singh and CW3 Ramesh Chand got attracted towards the scene of alleged occurrence. They reached the spot and relieved the applicant from the clutches of the respondents. The applicant is stated to have filed complaint with the police but no FIR was stated to have been lodged. Ultimately he filed the private complaint in the learned trial Court. After recording the preliminary evidence, respondents were summoned under Sections 504, 506 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. They denied the charges framed against them and the complainant, in order to prove the case, besides examining himself also produced CW2 Kuldeep Singh and CW3 Ramesh Chand. Significantly Kuldeep Singh did not know any of the respondents earlier and he stated in cross-examination that he was seeing the respondents for the first time in the Court on the day of his examination. Similarly CW3 Ramesh Chand has given contradictory version. Firstly, he states in - 3 - examination-in-chief that when he was returning from Mohtali and reached near Chaunch Khad, he heard the cries of Avtar Singh complainant. He reached the spot and rescued Avtar Singh from the respondents. Two lines of his cross-examination which appear at the tail end shatter his version completely. He stated that there were seven persons those who were giving beatings to the complainant. He did not recognize any of them. Learned trial Court took note of the above material contradictions and recorded acquittal of the respondent. On reexamining the evidence on record as aforesaid, I do not find that the impugned judgment of acquittal is perverse. Therefore, the leave to appeal is refused. The application is disposed of. Send down the record. March 31, 2010 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)