IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 419 of 2000 Decided on: 23.11.2010 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Rattan Singh. ..…Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. A.G. For the respondent : Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate. R.B. Misra,J. (Oral) The present criminal appeal has come-up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted, in reference to the impugned judgment dated 29.4.2000, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. in case No. 49/2 of 99/96, acquitting the respondent-accused for the offence, under Section 452, 326 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that on 30.12.1995, at about 9.45 P.M., respondents-accused Rattan Singh and Devinder Kumar forcibly entered in the house of the complainant Mehar Singh and snatch a sum of Rs. 500/- from 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the wasket of the complainant and dragged the complainant out side from the room and respondent-accused Rattan Singh took the Drat from the room of complainant and inflicted a blow of the same on the right side of the ear of the complainant, consequent upon complainant was injured and he was medically examined and FIR was presented before the Judicial Magistrate on 31.10.1995 and after investigation, respondent-accused was charged for the aforesaid offences. 3. During trial, respondent-accused Devinder Kumar had died, therefore, the trial took place against the present respondent-accused Rattan Singh. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as six prosecution witnesses, namely, PW-1 Mehar Singh, PW-2 Krishan Chand, PW-3 Abdul Rashid, PW-4 Smt. Urimilla, PW-5 H.C. Dharam Dass and PW-6 Dr. Satish Rathore, whereas the respondent-accused through his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. 5. On the scrutiny of prosecution witnesses and the materials on record, the complainant is found to have been injured with 3” x 2” and 1” x 2” injury mark and in view of the testimony of PW-6 Dr. Satish Rathore the injuries could be caused by fall. PW-1 in his endeavour to support the prosecution case has stated that he was dragged by respondents-accused and they started beating by blow of Danda and one blow of Drat was inflicted by respondent-accused Rattan Singh. He further stated that when he cried for help, respondents-accused ran away alongwith Drat and Torch and unable to tell the alleged weapon of offence Danda, used in 3 assault was not lying on the spot. During cross-examination, PW-1 has also admitted that alleged weapons of offence namely Drat, Danda and Torch were not shown to him. PW-1 had also admitted that village Kiari consist of 20 to 25 houses but none had come forward to help him. He also admitted that the relations between his family and family of respondent-accused were strained and the alleged occurrence took place at a distance of 100 Ft. from the residential houses of the village, which was consisting about 15 to 20 houses. In cross- examination, PW-1 has stated that respondent-accused inflicted a single blow by the side of its blade. He also deposed that the blow was inflicted at the movement he was standing near by the door and blood was also spread upon the floor of the house as well as upon his wasket. According to him, he became unconscious and after half an hour he came into the sense. The testimony of PW-1 is contradicted by testimony of PW-6 Dr. Satish Rathore who had observed two injuries and has not noticed any injury by Danda, whereas, in view of the testimony of PW-1 he was assaulted by blow of Danda and Drat and in view of his testimony in cross-examination he was assaulted by Drat given as one blow, whereas, two injuries were noticed on his person. As such, the contradiction is being noticed in the testimony of ocular and medical evidence. 6. PW-2 Krishan Chand and PW-4 Smt. Urimilla met the complainant after the incident. PW-2 in cross-examination admitted that the locality of the village was consisting about 25 to 30 houses and that houses are at a distance of 80 mts. from the site of occurrence. In view of the testimony of PW-2, police 4 was unable to recover the weapon of offence because the respondents-accused ran away. PW-2 further deposed that he had seen alleged wasket and shirt and that he had not seen the alleged blood stained on the wearing shirt and has very categorically stated in cross-examination that blood was not spread over the floor. PW-2 further deposed that respondents- accused were arrested by SHO but MLC was not obtained and the respondents-accused were released by the police officials and they run away for the anticipatory bail. Doubt is created from the testimony of PW-2, as to how after arrest of the respondents-accused, police released them without bail bond. PW-4 has deposed that at about 9.45 P.M. her father-in-law came to the old house from the new house who was shouting and they saw the complainant was blood stained. Complainant has deposed that injury was caused at 9.45 P.M. and thereafter, he remained unconscious for half an hour. Thus, a doubt is created as to how the PW-4 could observe complainant at 9.45 P.M. in blood stained condition. On further examination PW-4 stated that complainant narrated the incident to them by saying that respondents-accused Rattan Chand and Devinder had inflicted the blow of Drat, which was kept by complainant for his self defence. The testimony of PW-4, as such, does not support the version of the complainant that he was beaten by Danda. 7. In the facts and circumstances, keeping in view the contradictions appearing from the ocular and medical evidence, inconsistencies and contradictions emanating from the other prosecution witnesses, especially PW-4 and PW-1, the prosecution case becomes doubtful. In the facts and 5 circumstances, learned trial Court had rightly arrivied at the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered view also, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the respondent-accused. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is, therefore, dismissed. 8. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondent-accused, are hereby discharged. (R.B. Misra), Judge. November 23, 2010, (Sanjay Karol), Judge. (vs)