Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.437 of 2001. Dated of Decision: August 21, 2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Albel Singh and others. ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the Respondents : Mr. K.B.Khajuria, Advocate. Surinder Singh,J (oral) : The respondents were tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 325, 323, 451, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and their acquittal has been assailed in the instant appeal by the State. The leave to appeal was granted. In brief, the allegations against on which the respondents were put on trial are that on 10.1.2000, at about 8.30 P.M., in village Dahol Kalan, the respondents entered the house of Bhag Singh, complainant, threatened and gave beatings to him, thereby causing fracture of his nose. The - 2 - matter was reported to the police, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW1/A was registered. Police visited the spot, got Bhag Singh medically examined and prepared site plan Ex.PW8/A. The medical certificates Exts.PW3/A to H and X-ray alongwith its opinion were taken into possession. After recording the statements of the witnesses and completing the investigation, the case was presented in the court for trial. The respondents were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and respondents were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations and circumstances put to them, however, no evidence in defence was led and at the end of the trial, respondents were acquitted, on the grounds that the complainant’s brother Bhag Singh and Jai Singh were locked into the litigation and the respondents were closely related to Jai Singh. When Jai Singh fell ill, the respondents visited him, but the approach to his room was through the adjacent room of complainant his brother, while crossing through the said portion, the complainant raised objection. Though complainant alleged that he was beaten up by the respondents, but according to the respondents, hotly exchange of words ensued into scuffle and - 3 - respondent Rakesh Kumar had also sustained many injuries. He was also medically examined by the Doctor. The injuries sustained by him were not explained. The scuffle stood proved on the record and from the evidence, it could not be proved who was the aggressor. The evidence of the prosecution was found discrepant and self destroying, therefore the respondents were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer has vehemently argued that the learned trial court has decided the case in a slip-shod and perfunctory manner and set unrealistic standards to evaluate the direct and cogent evidence and the statements of the prosecution witnesses were wrongly ignored. Contra, Shri K.B. Khajuria, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and further submitted that the findings arrived at by the learned trial court are reasonable and borne out from the record. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record. As a matter of fact, the FIR was lodged by Rattan Singh, brother of Bhag Singh and it was revealed that his brother Bhag Singh was in his house. The respondents herein alongwith one Avtar Singh came in the compound of the house of Bhag - 4 - Singh and they called out the Bhag Singh and gave him fisticuffing and beatings with the blow of dandas, however, he tried to intervene and sustained the injuries. The defence raised by the respondents was that Albel Singh and Rakesh Kumar are real brothers. Jai Singh, the brother of Bhag Singh was ill. He was residing in the adjacent room of Bhag Singh and the way to reach the house of Jai Singh was through the room of Bhag Singh. While passing through the said passage, Bhag Singh raised the objection, which caused the scuffle. It has also come in evidence that Bhag Singh and Jai Singh both were locked in litigation. Complainant did not like the visit of respondents in the house of Jai Singh his real brother. PW1 Rattan Singh, complainant has admitted these facts in his cross- examination, however, he denied that Bhag Singh was the aggressor, but he also did not state as to how scuffle took place. He also stated that Rakesh Kumar, Dharam Singh and Bansi were not present on the spot. PW2 Bhag Singh stated that when he was called out by Albel Singh, he was told that his relatives were tortured by him to the maximum, on this, he replied that the partition had already taken place between him and his brothers, on this Albeil Singh hit on his head, thereafter he called other respondents including Avtar Singh (not an accused) - 5 - and they attacked him with lathis. In cross- examination, he has also stated that he was accompanying his brother PW1 Rattan Singh when the matter was reported in the police. He admitted in the cross-examination that the passage to the room of Jai Singh is through his room, however, he denied that when respondent Rakesh Kumar was going to the room of Jai Singh through that passage, he was hit by him. It has not been explained how Rakesh Kumar had sustained as much as four injuries on his person. He also admitted that he had filed criminal case against his brother Jai Singh under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. He named two witnesses Banshi Ram and Ramesh. Ramesh Kumar was not examined. PW7 Bansi Ram has stated that no quarrel took place in his presence and neither he knew what the cause of quarrel nor he did say to anyone who had attacked whom. PW8 Tilak Raj has stated that PW1 Rattan Singh told him that he was beaten up by three boys ( but no names were mentioned), but when he reached the spot, he neither saw respondents running from the spot not anything happened in his presence. Though the Doctor has stated that injury No.2 on the nose was grievous, as opined by the Radiologist vide his report Ext.PW3/A, but it is not signed by the doctor nor Radiologist was examined to prove the fracture of the nasal bone. - 6 - PW3 Dr.G.S.Dhillon has corroborated the version of the accused that the respondent Rakesh Kumar had also sustained the injuries on his head though simple but was relatable to the time of the alleged occurrence. To that effect, he also issued the medico legal certificate Ex.PW3/H. On the critical examination and reappraisal of the aforesaid evidence, it is manifest that Bhag Singh and Jai Singh were not pulling on well, whereas the respondents were having good relations with Jai Singh. When he fell ill, Albel Singh and his brother Rakesh Kumar had visited his house through the room of Bhag Singh and Bhag Singh picked up a quarrel on their coming there and the evidence on record suggests that there was a scuffle in which Rakesh Kumar had also sustained injuries. Amarjit Singh is son of Jai Singh, who was also implicated in this case. The name of Avtar Singh also did find in the FIR as the assailant, but he was not arrayed as an accused in this case for the best reason known to the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of the prosecution is full of contradictions, inconsistencies and enmity inter-se the parties is writ large. There was old litigation between the real brothers Bhag Singh and Jai Singh, the - 7 - real genesis of the occurrence was suppressed. The injuries on the person of respondent Rakesh Kumar were not explained. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt and the findings of the learned trial court for acquitting the respondents for the offences charged are born out from the record, therefore, it calls no interference. Accordingly, the appeal merits dismissal. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by each of them at any stage during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. August 21, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.