IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.487 of 2002 Decided on: 31.3.2009 State of H.P …..Appellant. VERSUS Mahinder Singh …..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G for the appellant For the Respondent: Mr.Anup Rattan, advocate for respondent Deepak Gupta,Judge (Oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement of the Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I, Dharamshala decided on 12.2.2002 in criminal case No.56-II/01 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.5.2001 at around 7.00 p.m., complainant Neeru Ram was going from the fields towards his house. Accused Mahinder Singh got down from a jeep and started beating the complainant. Thereafter when the complainant freed himself and was going towards his house. the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes accused chased him but on seeing the younger brother of the complainant, the accused left the place. 3. The complainant disclosed the entire incidence to his younger brother and thereafter, the matter was reported to the police at 10.10 a.m. on 21.5.2001. On the basis of this information, FIR Ex.PW5/B was lodged. The injured was got medically examined. Investigation was conducted and the challan was filed against the accused. The accused was summoned. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial, the accused has been acquitted. Hence the present appeal. 4. One of the facts which has come during the trial is that one Desh Raj had witnessed the entire occurrence. He was the only independent witness. He was not examined by the prosecutor. The other witness was Yodh Raj, real brother of the complainant. Yodh Raj was also given up and was not examined. In such a situation, the learned Trial Court held that statement of the complainant has to be scrutinized carefully. In cross-examination, the complainant has admitted that his statement was recorded by the police after one month of the occurrence. He also admits that more than 20 persons were present at the spot and he had disclosed this fact to the police. However, this fact is not recorded in the statement made under Section 161, Cr.P.C. None of the eye witnesses to the occurrence have been produced by the prosecution. The statement of the complainant does not inspire confidence. The occurrence took place on 20.5.2001 and the complainant was examined by the doctor on 21.5.2001. However, the site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer on 17.6.2001. This shows that the investigation has not been proper. Both the eye witnesses, i.e., the real brother of the accused Yodh Raj as well as one Desh Raj were given up as having been won over by the accused. When the statement of the complainant itself is not corroborated by any other evidence, it is very hazardous to convict the accused on the bald statement of the complainant. Therefore, the learned trial court was right in holding that there is a shadow of doubt and benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. 5. I find no reason to interfere in the judgement of the learned trial court. The appeal being without merit is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, if any furnished, by the accused are ordered to be discharged. March 31, 2009 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge.