HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A.No. 350 of 2001 Decided on: 3.4.2008. State of Himachal Pradesh ………Appellant. Versus Pankaj @ Pal and others ……Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondents: Mr.M.L. Brakta, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, dated 26.12.2000, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 324, 341, 504, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 2.9.1998, at 11.50 p.m., a statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was made by the complainant Manohar Lal before the police. The complainant alleged that today when, at about 8.30 p.m., he was going towards his house accompanied by one Ashwani Kumar, respondents met him on way and prevented him from proceeding further and _______ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - they also started abusing him and threatened to take his life. It was further alleged that he was given beatings with fist by all the respondents and respondent Pankaj inflicted a knife blow near his left eye and blood started oozing out and his clothes were stained with blood. He was rescued by Ashwani Kumar and one other person, who came to the spot subsequently. On this report, a case was registered leading to the filing of challan and trial of the respondents, which resulted in their acquittal. I have heard the learned Law Officer for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the record of the case. The submissions made by the learned Law Officer were that the statement of the complainant, coupled with medical evidence and other evidence, was sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondents. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court can be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. I have been taken through the evidence led by the prosecution. A perusal of the statement of PW-1 Manohar Lal (complainant) shows that when the respondents intercepted him, they asked him as to why he had demanded money from their father and they started giving beatings to him. He stated about one injury inflicted near his left eye and blood started oozing out and his clothes were stained with blood. He stated that he was accompanied by Ashwani Kumar, who tried to save him. On hearing his cries, one other person came to the spot and he was brought to the police station. He further stated that statement Ext.PW-1/A was made before the police and the case was registered. He stated about the recovery of one knife vide recovery memo - 3 - Ext.PW-1/B and he had identified the knife which is Ext.P-1. He also stated that his shirt was also taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo. A perusal of the statement of PW-1 Manohar Lal shows that he had only stated about one injury inflicted with knife by respondent Pankaj near his left eye. He has nowhere stated that he was given beatings by fist or in any other manner and over which part of his body he sustained injuries at that time. Therefore, the statement of the Medical Officer Dr.P.C. Sharma PW-3 that there were three injuries on the person of the complainant cannot be said to be corroborative to the statement of the complainant, who referred to only injury No.1 on his left eye. PW-2 Ashwani Kumar, who was allegedly accompanying the complainant, has only stated that one of the accused persons gave a blow with knife on the person of Manohar Lal and he has not identified the said accused person who gave the blow. He does not give any reason for not identifying the accused, as to whether it was dark at that time or that he was not knowing the accused person or what was the reason for his non-identification of the respondent Pankaj who allegedly gave blow on the person of the complainant, as per the statement of the complainant. PW-4 Santosh Kumar has stated that he found only the blood coming out of the mouth of the complainant, who was lying in a Nallah. He further stated that when he asked the complainant about the injuries, the complainant told him that he suffered these injuries by fall. Statement of PW-5 Santosh Kumar was not relied upon by the learned trial Court being hearsay evidence. - 4 - From the above discussion of the evidence, it is clear that the statement of the complainant was not corroborated by the only independent witness Ashwani Kumar or the medical evidence in full and as such the findings recorded by the learned trial Court leading to the acquittal of the respondents cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State of H.P. and as such the same is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. April 3, 2008 (TILAK) (V.K. Ahuja), Judge.