IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 555 of 2003 Date of decision: 14.06.2010 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Sahib Singh and another … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Dinesh Thakur vice Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baijnath, dated 23.7.2003, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 325, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 29.5.2000, at 12.00 Noon, a rapat was lodged with the police by one Chakar Ram that on the previous day, at about 3.00 P.M., he was going for his duty as Chowkidar and Sahib Singh, respondent, met him. The complainant enquired him as to why he removed his tap, on which he started giving him abuses and other respondent came there. Both the respondents gave him beatings with legs and fists over 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 his right eye, right leg and other parts of the body. He suffered injuries. He was rescued by Indra Devi and Mina Devi. It was alleged that while leaving the place, both the respondents also gave threat to take his life. On this report, a rapat was entered and the complainant was medically examined and on receipt of the medical report and after investigation, the challan was put up before the learned trial Court under the Sections mentioned above, who tried the respondents, leading to their acquittal. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the prosecution had examined 7 witnesses to substantiate their case. PW-4 complainant Chakar Ram has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint that both the respondents gave him beatings with legs and fists. Injury No. 1 was reported to be grievous, while other injuries were opined to be simple. It is clear from a perusal of the statement of the complainant PW-4 that the occurrence had taken place on 28.5.2000, at about 3.00 P.M. and report was lodged on 29.5.2000, at 12.00 Noon. He did not give any satisfactory explanation in regard to not lodging the report on the same day, though he admits that the buses are available and it takes about one hour to reach the Police Station. His daughter who has been examined as PW-5 Kumari Indra also admits that it takes one hour to reach the Police Station from the place of occurrence. No plausible explanation has been given by the complainant for not lodging the report on the same day and that the injuries suffered by him were not so serious and he still proceeded to his office on 3 the same day to report of his duties. Moreover, he has admitted that there is civil litigation with the respondents and the delay in lodging the report with the police makes the Court to be careful in appreciating the statement of the complainant with care and caution. PW-4 Chakar Ram further admits that there are about 25-30 houses near the place of occurrence. He states that he also lodged report to the Panchayat as well as with the Principal of the school, where he was serving. But neither the report lodged with the Panchayat , if any, nor with the Principal has been placed on record or proved on record, so that his statement could be relied upon. 5. PW-5 Kumari Indra is the daughter of the complainant who is the only eye witness examined in this case, who had allegedly come to the spot alongwith other witness Mina Kumari on hearing of the cries. She stated that both the respondents were giving beatings to her father and while leaving the place, they also gave threats. She admitted in her cross-examination that 15-16 persons had reached the spot at that time. Apart from her, other witness Mina Kumari and other persons had also come to the spot, but none of them was associated by the police as a witness nor they have been produced by the prosecution. She also admits the enmity in between them and the civil litigation is going on in between the parties. She clearly stated that Mina Kumari was her Taya’s daughter, but the only other witness Mina Kumari has not been produced by the prosecution. Therefore, non-examination of Mina Kumari and other persons who had witnessed the occurrence, had weighed in the mind of the learned trial Court in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt. Alongwith this fact, the 4 delay in lodging the report also in the facts and circumstances of the case can be said to be fatal for the prosecution, which was not believed by the learned trial Court. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse, calling for an interference by this Court. 6. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ), June 14, 2010 Judge (BSS) 5