IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 546/2003 Decided on: 10.5.2010 _____________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. Versus Shakti Chand and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondents : Mr. B.R. Sharma, Advocate vice counsel. ____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral) State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 26.5.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dehra in criminal RBT case No. 119-II/2001/96, whereby respondents charged with and tried for offences punishable under sections 451, 323, 324 and 325 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that Gurcharan Singh, Chowkidar in village Soharan lodged report at Police Post, Ranital on 14.10.1995 stating that on the previous night around 8.30 P.M. while he was present at home, he heard noise from the house of Jhallu Ram “ Bachao Bachao”. After hearing the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 screams, Gurcharan Singh alongwith many persons of the village gathered and asked Jhallu Ram as to what happened. Jhallu Ram told that accused Shakti Chand alongwith others, trespassed into his house and gave beatings. It was further alleged that Jhallu Ram was not in a position to walk. Statement of PW-2 Raj Kumari was recorded under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of which FIR was registered. It is stated in the report that she was sitting in the house of her parents with an infant child in her lap. She handed over the child to her father and came out of the room and found that accused Shakti Chand was standing in the courtyard near a tree. While she ran away towards the room, accused Shakti Chand dragged her out and other two persons also came from behind the house and trespassed into the room and thereafter switched off the light. It was further stated by her that accused Shakti Chand , Rai Singh and other gave beatings to her and also to her mother and father. Her father was attacked with knife. During scuffle, two teeth of Raj kumari were also broken and her earrings also got lost. On hearing the noise, many persons of village, namely, Kaur Chand Rana, Ravi Shankar, Ward Punch, Dillo Ram, Kirpaul Singh, Budhi Singh and informant Gurcharan Singh gathered on the spot. On seeing these persons, accused fled away from the spot. On the basis of statement of PW-2, FIR was registered. Jhallu Ram was sent for medical examination. Simple injury was found on his person and similarly simple injuries were also found on the person of mother of PW-2 Raj Kumari. PW-2 Raj Kumari was also 3 medically examined. Simple as well as grievous injuries were found on her person as her teeth were found broken. The matter was investigated. The challan was put up in the Court against the respondents after completing all the codal formalities under section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses in all to prove its case against the respondents. Respondents were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defence of the respondents is of simpliciter of denial. The trial court acquitted the respondents. 4. Mr. Anil Jaswal, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondents. 5. Mr. B.R. Sharma, Advocate appearing vice counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment of the learned trial court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 7. In her statement, recorded under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, PW-2 Raj Kumari has given the names of other witnesses, namely, Kaur Chand Rana, Ravi Shankar, Dillo Ram, Kirpal Singh and Budhi Singh. However, the prosecution has only examined PW-4 Dillo Ram and PW-6 Gurcharan Singh. The prosecution has not examined father of PW-2 Raj Kumari, namely, Jhallu Ram. PW-2 Raj Kumari has stated that on the evening of 13.10.1995, she was sitting in the room at her parents house with infant child in her lap and came out after 4 handing over the child to her father, respondent Shakti Chand was standing near the tree and caught hold of her and dragged her out. This version has not been supported by independent witnesses. According to her, respondent Shakti Chand was armed with knife. However, PW-6 Gurcharan Singh has not supported this version of PW-2. PW-6 Gurcharan Singh has deposed that he had not witnessed any one beating Jhallu or his family members nor he had seen anyone running from the place of occurrence. He was declared hostile. PW-2 has also stated that PW-4 Dillo Ram had witnessed the occurrence and rescued her. PW-4 Dillo Ram has only stated that on 14.10.1995, one shirt and suit of black colour was taken into possession by the police. In his cross-examination, he has stated that on 13.10.1995, neither he visited the house of PW-2 nor he was called by any one. Statement of PW-2 Raj Kumari and PW-3 Phoolan Devi are not supported by independent witnesses. Rather PW-6 Gurcharan Singh has been declared hostile. It is true that as per medical evidence, injuries received by PW-2 Raj Kumari were simple and grievous vide Medico Legal Certificate Ex.PW-1/B, however, PW-8 Dr. N.K. Behal has stated that these injuries could be caused by fall. PW-3 Phoolan Devi was examined by PW-9 Dr. V.K. Chaudhary. He has issued Medico Legal Certificate Ex.PW-9/B. However, the fact of the matter is that the prosecution has failed to prove that these injuries were caused by the respondents. PW-10 Pritam Chand was declared hostile. PW-5 Amin Chand has stated that he could not say that 5 who had attacked his wife with knife. PW-2 Raj Kumari, PW-3 Phoolan Devi and PW-5 Amin Chand are closely related to each other and are interested in the success of case. It is settled law by now that the statements of witnesses closely related to each other can be relied upon, however, the same are required to be scrutinized with proper care and caution. In the present case, statements of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 have not been corroborated by independent witness PW-6. 8. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, the view taken by the learned trial court is supportable by the evidence and there is no perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents/accused stand discharged. (Rajiv Sharma), J. 10.5. 2010 *awasthi*