IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.551 of 2004. Date of Decision: 26th July, 2011. ____________________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Appellant. Versus Rajinder Singh and others …..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J (Oral). The State felt aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, hence the present appeal. 2. The respondents were put on trial on the allegations that on 12.5.1999 at 9.00 a.m., the demarcation of the land of the complainant and the respondents was being conducted by Chuni Lal Patwari of Bandobast. At that time, the respondents were ploughing their fields. It is alleged that the respondents got infuriated. Thus, they picked-up the quarrel with the complainant. He was given blows Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - with the iron-rod by respondent Rajinder Singh, which was used for the demarcation, whereas respondent Liaq Ram fisticuffed him. It is alleged that on raising hue and cry, no one saved him as at the disputed place no other person was immediately available. He reported the matter to the police which culminated into FIR Ext.PW5/A. The complainant was got medically examined. His injuries were X-rayed, but there was no fracture. Medico-Legal Certificate is Ext.PW3/A. Police took into possession vide memo Ext.PW4/A the blood- stained bearing apparels of the complainant. 3. After completing investigation, Challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondents. They were accordingly charge- sheeted, tried and acquitted on the basis of contradictions and on the ground of non- examination of material witnesses. 4. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 5. PW1 Narain Singh complainant has deviated from his earlier version given to the police. He was confronted with that material portion to which he denied, whereas PW5 HC Sita Ram (I.O.) stated that whatever the complainant stated before him, he - 3 - correctly recorded. No portion was omitted or added by him. In fact, the complainant while making the report to the police on 12.5.1999 stated that as soon as the demarcation started the respondents started giving beatings to him with the iron–rod which was used for the demarcation and respondent Liaq Ram fisticuffed him, but when confronted with his earlier statement recorded by the police this fact did not find mentioned wherein he stated that respondent Rajinder Singh was ploughing his field and respondent Liaq Ram was with him. He also stated that respondent Jai Singh was carrying an iron-rod in his hand, whereas Rajinder Singh and Liaq Ram came running to him and Rajinder Singh gave bearings to him with a stick and Liaq Ram fisticuffed him. His whole statement is irreconcilable. 6. The entire episode appears to have been changed by the complainant by assigning different roles to the respondents during the trial which were not initially his case when he made the complaint to the police. He also stated that Chuni Lal Patwari was present there alongwith Kanshi Ram, his uncle, besides other villagers, but neither the Patwari nor Kanshi Ram was examined to lend strength to his - 4 - version. He was confronted with his statement with respect to the material facts which assumes his statement a suspect. He has blown hot and cold in his statement before the Court. Even in the cross- examination he stated that Rajinder Singh and Liaq Ram were present and Jai Singh was ploughing the field but in the later part he stated that Rajinder Singh and Liaq Ram were ploughing the field. When he was confronted which part of the statement was correct, on this he replied that all his statements were wrong. His own statement is quite shaky and is not worth inspiring confidence. 7. The injuries which have been shown in the Medico Legal Certificate do not synchronize with the alleged weapon used by the respondents as stated by the complainant. Even in the MLC it is clearly mentioned that no fracture of the complainant was detected and the doctor when examined in the Court has also not substantiated the fact that there was any fracture of any of the bone of the complainant. 8. It is not understood what was the material with the learned trial Court to frame charge against the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Even the - 5 - perusal of the charge-sheet shows that it was under Section 323/23 I.P.C. What does not it, is not understandable and it shows that the learned trial Court has adopted a very casual approach while framing the charge against the respondents. 9. Further, the Investigating Officer did not take into possession the Jamabandi of the place where the demarcation was being conducted to know about the land to whom it belonged. Whether the complainant was justified to get it demarcated? However, the complainant admitted that the land of the respondents was abutting his land and even PW2 Liaq Ram stated that the altercation took place when during the demarcation, the demarcation party reached near the disputed point. What is that point, is not known. He was also confronted with his earlier statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to the manner in which the incident had taken place, which is different from what he initially spelt out to the police. It is not understood as to why the prosecution did not examine the other material witnesses who were present on the spot especially the Patwari and could have thrown light the manner in which the incident took place. - 6 - 10. In the totality of the aforesaid circumstances, the evidence on record and the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are borne out from the record, which require no interference. The appeal is without merit and is dismissed. 11. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of this case. 12. Send down the records forthwith. July 26, 2011. (Surinder Singh), (rc) Judge.