1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 604 of 2001. Decided on: September 23, 2008. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Durga Ram and others. …..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondents : Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, vice Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral): Heard and gone through the record. The State has filed the instant appeal, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of acquittal, passed under Sections 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In brief, the prosecution case has been that on 9.6.1988, at about 3.30 p.m. Prem Chand was found present in his house. The respondents and one Nikku were digging a water pond (khurli) for their cattle. The complainant asserted his ownership and tried to restrain them from their activity. Durga Ram respondent got annoyed and gave him pick-axe blow, causing an injury on his Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 index finger and respondent Ram Pratap dealt with a stick blow on his ankle. Respondent Roshan Lal and Nikka Ram gave fisticuffing and kick blows to the complainant. He raised hue and cry. Leela Devi and Bhangi got attracted and rescued the complainant from them. The complainant reported the matter to the police and FIR Ex.PW1/A was registered. Prem Chand was medically examined by PW4 Dr. Gagan Mahajan. During his examination, Doctor found a cut injury on the index finger of Prem Chand, which was alleged to have been caused with a sharp edged weapon. To this effect, Medico Legal certificate Ex.PW4/A was issued. The police prepared the site plan Ex.PW6/A and took into possession the pick-axe and stick vide memo Ex.PW1/B in the presence of PW2 Basant Ram and Relu Ram. The statements of the witnesses were also recorded. After completing the investigation, it was presented in the court for trial. The respondents were charge-sheeted for the offences aforesaid, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined its witnesses to prove the charges and the respondents were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence of the respondents was that due to civil litigation and old enmity, the instant case was falsely lodged against them, however, they did not lead any defence evidence. At the end of the trial, the respondents were acquitted, on the grounds that Leela Devi an independent witness did not support the prosecution case and PW7 Fagu Ram was inimically 3 disposed of towards the respondents and even in his cross- examination, he has stated that no occurrence took place in his presence and further he admitted that the pendency of the civil cases between them and also stated that he was not having good terms with Durga Ram respondent. Another independent witness Bhangi Ram was not examined and the statement of the injured was not worth inspiring confidence. Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer has forcefully argued that the impugned judgment of acquittal was wrong and illegal and the learned trial court has set the unrealistic standard to evaluate the evidence of the prosecution. I have reappraised the evidence on record. The complainant himself has admitted the civil as well as criminal litigation with the respondents. He is alleged to have given stick and fist blows by the respondents. PW4 Dr. Gagan Mahajan found only a cut injury on the index finger of the complainant and no other visible injury was found on his person. Had he been beaten up as stated by him, the complainant would have sustained many injuries on his person. The alleged weapon of offence was not exhibited in the statement of Doctor in order to connect the injury with the pick-axe. The alleged eye witness PW3 Leela Devi did not support the case of the prosecution and another eye witness Bhangi Ram was not examined. The case of the prosecution therefore does not stand prove against the respondents beyond doubt in view of the old litigation inter-se the parties and material contradictions in the statement of the complainant as pointed out 4 above. His sole testimony cannot be made the basis to pass the conviction for the offences aforesaid. Even there is no evidence of any fracture. Further no explanation has been offered by the prosecution as to why Nikka Ram was not arraigned as an accused in the instant case, when the initial allegations were also against him. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, the case of the prosecution lacks probity and could not be proved beyond doubt. Thus in my considered opinion, the learned trial court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondents for the offences charged. Therefore, no interference is called for accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh), Judge. September 23, 2008. (Pds)