IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. 352 of 1999 Reserved on: June 23, 2010 Date of Decision : July 5, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant v. Hira Lal & Anr. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. A.G. For the respondents: Mr. K. R. Thakur, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J. For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 24.4.1994, accused were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 26.5.1999 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, in Crl. Case No.304/2 of 1995, titled as State of H.P. vs. Hira Lal & Anr., the accused stand acquitted of the charged offence. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.4.1994, Sh. Surinder Kumar (PW-6) and his father were at their house when at about 10.30 a.m. he noticed that cattle belonging to the accused Hira Lal were grazing in their field. PW-6 was directed 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 by his father to remove the cattle from the field. His efforts were obstructed by accused Krishna, who was carrying a darat (sickle) in her hand. She even tried to attack PW-6 on his head with the same. Accused Hira Lal also reached at the spot and started attacking PW-6 with the darat. Mother of PW-6 also arrived at the spot and saw accused Hira Lal give beatings to PW-6. Due to the kicks given by Hira Lal in the abdomen, PW-6 vomited blood. He was taken to the nearby hospital. On the basis of the information received the police reached the hospital where the statement (Ext.PW-1/A) of Sh. Med Ram (PW-1) was recorded on the basis of which F.I.R. dated 25.5.1994 (Ext.PW-11/G) under Section 307/34 IPC was registered with Police Station, Dhali. Police machinery was swung into motion and weapon of offence i.e. darat (Ext.P-1) was taken into possession vide seizure memo (Ext.PW-3/A). PW-6 was medically examined by Dr. Sanjay Vikrant (PW-11) who found the injuries to be grievous in nature and issued medico legal certificate (Ext.PW- 10/A). Further surgical operation of the injured was carried out by Dr. Kamaljit (PW-8). Medical records (Ext.PW-7/A) were also taken by the police. 3. With the completion of the investigation the challan was presented in the Court for trial and the accused were charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 325 IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and the 3 statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC was also recorded. In defence the accused examined two witnesses. 4. The Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offence. 5. For the purposes of deciding the matter statements of complainant Sh. Med Ram (PW-1), his wife Smt. Laxmi Devi (PW-2), his son Sh. Surinder Kumar (PW-6), Sh. Devi Chand (PW-5) & Sh. Davinder Kumar (PW-7). Other witnesses are either the police officials or have proved the injuries sustained by the son of the complainant or the witnesses to the seizure memo. 6. There is no dispute that the parties are neighbours and the land was jointly held by the parties which according to the complainant was partitioned. The independent witnesses S/Sh. Devi Chand (PW-5) & Davinder Kumar (PW-7), have not supported the prosecution and inspite of having been declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor nothing material has come out in their statements. 7. Now the statement of complainant (PW-1) does not inspire confidence. He admits that both the parties are near relations and are inimical towards each other. From the statements of PW-1, PW-2 & PW-6, it is evident that the field where the cattle belonging to Hira Lal were allegedly grazing was not visible from the house. If that be so then obviously the prosecution version that PW-1 & PW-6 have seen the cattle graze in their fields from their houses is false. 4 8. In fact the presence of PW-1 at the site appears to be doubtful. Defence version in the instant case appears to be more probable and true. According to them PW-2 & PW-6 were washing their clothes along side their fields. When they objected to the same the complainant party started quarrelling and became violent. In fact they were the aggressor party. PW-1 attempted to kick Smt. Krishna, but missed her and inadvertently kicked his own son PW-6. Now the parties have admitted that an unsavory incident had taken place between them in the evening prior to the date of occurrence of the incident. The matter was reported to the authorities also. Hence the possibility of the accused being falsely implicated cannot be ruled out. 9. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Mohammed Ankoos and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the person has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. July 5, 2010. (Sanjay Karol) (rana) Judge.