IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.728 of 2000 Date of Decision : 7.1.2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus: Raj Kumar & another …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr. J. S. Guleria, Law Officer, For the respondents : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 29.7.2000 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, Distt. Bilaspur, H. P. in prosecution case No. 273/1 of 1997, titled as State v. Raj Kumar & another, acquitting the accused of the charged offence. As per the case of the prosecution on 13.8.1997 at about 7.00 P.M., the complainant Smt. Meeran Devi (PW-1) was standing at the roof of her house, when the accused persons trespassed into her house, abused and gave beatings to her. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 They also threatened her with dire consequences. FIR No. 60/97 (Ext.PW-1/A) under Sections 451, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC was got registered by the complainant with the police station, Bharari. The accused was got medically examined through Dr. T. S. Chandel (PW-7) and her MLC Ext. PW-7/A was taken on record. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and with the completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court for trial. The accused persons were charged for the offences under Sections 323, 451, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and the statements of the accused u/s 313 Cr.PC were also recorded. The defence taken by the accused is that due to prior animosity between the two families, the witnesses have falsely deposed against them. Appreciating the material produced by the prosecution, the trial Court acquitted the accused of the charged offences for the reason that some of the witnesses turned hostile and there were major contradictions in the version of the complainant PW-1, rendering the case of the prosecution to be doubtful. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 3 Through the versions of Shri Deep Ram (PW-6) and Dr. T. S. Chandel (PW-7), it has been proved that the police carried out the investigation and the complainant suffered simple injuries on her body. However, this fact by itself, in my view, would not be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused for the charged offence. Therefore, the statements of the remaining witnesses need to be examined. Smt. Kaulan Devi (PW-4) and Smt. Kashmira Devi (PW-5) are the independent witnesses in whose presence the incident is alleged to have taken place. Both of them have been declared hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution inspite of their being cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. In this background, the statements of the remaining three witnesses, namely; complainant Meeran Devi (PW-1), her father–in-law Shri Paras Ram (PW-2) and her mother-in-law Smt. Yasodha Devi (PW-3) needs to be examined. All the three witnesses are related to each other and their statements have to be minutely examined keeping in view the defence taken by the accused. Statement of PW-1 renders the case of the prosecution to be extremely doubtful. In her cross-examination, she has categorically admitted that the accused were quarrelling with Raj Kumar and Balwant and no quarrel took place between her and the accused. This categorical admission made by the 4 complainant totally demolishes the case of the prosecution. Shri Balwant has not been examined by the Investigating Officer nor has he been examined as a witness in the present case by the prosecution. She has also admitted that her mother-in-law Smt. Yasodha Devi (PW-3) had lodged a complaint with the police against Shri Roop Lal (uncle of the accused Raj Kumar) to the effect that her husband had been killed by Roop Lal which fact was incorrect. Her husband was alive. In fact PW-3 has categorically admitted that there has been prior litigation between the complainant and the accused party and, therefore, she is deposing against the accused persons. The versions of PW-2 & PW-3 recorded in the Court appear to be incorrect as they have stated that even they were beaten up by the accused and they sustained injuries on their bodies. However, there is nothing on record to prove the said fact except for their uncorroborated statements. They were not medically examined and it is not the case of the prosecution either. The version of these witnesses, therefore, is not correct and their testimony cannot be relied upon to hold the accused guilty of the charged offence. From the statements of the witnesses, therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt showing the complicity of the accused in the charged offence. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. The 5 Court below has appreciated the material in its entirety and there is no perversity in the same. For all the aforesaid reasons, I see no reason to interfere with the findings and conclusions of the Court below and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds stand discharged. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. January 7, 2008. (rana)