IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 113/2005 Date of decision: 11.11.2011 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Ravinder Singh and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) The challenge in this appeal is by the State against the acquittal of the respondents passed by the learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 451, 323, 506 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. 2. In short, prosecution case can be stated thus. On 18.5.2002 PW2 Mohinder Singh, who was running a shop, after its closure around 10.45 p.m. returned to his house which was at a walk-able 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - distance of 10 minutes. No sooner did he reach his court-yard of his house, he was confronted by respondent Kulwinder Singh who used abusive language, followed by other accused persons was given beatings. When his family members came there, they were also given thrashing with dandas. 3. Next day, Mohinder Singh reported the matter to the police in terms of FIR Ext. PW2/A. The injured were got medically examined. Their medico legal certificates were taken into possession by the police. During the investigation, police also took t- shirt Ext.P1 and waist Ext. P2 vide seizure memo Ext. PW2/B. The injuries of Vikram Singh and PW5 Harbhajan Singh were also x-rayed but no fracture was detected. 4. After recording the statements of the witnesses and completing the investigation, challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondents. 5. Respondents were accordingly charge sheeted for the offence aforesaid to which they denied. 6. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and respondents were also examined - 3 - under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No evidence in defence was led. 7. At the end of the trial, respondents were acquitted on the ground that it was an inhabited area, there was no independent corroboration to the statements of the witnesses. Witnesses who were examined were closely related to each other and that they had the history of litigation between them and also there was no cogent evidence worth reliance to sustain the charges. 8. Shri P.M. Negi learned Deputy Advocate General vehemently argued that the injured were the competent witnesses. Their testimonies were wrongly rejected by the learned trial Court and further that there are no material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses which could be viewed with suspicion. 9. Contra Shri Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and highlighted the contradictions in the FIR, statements of the prosecution witnesses and also ventilated that the prosecution witnesses had modulated their statements as per their suitability in order to rope in even the aged members of the family in order to secure their vendetta. - 4 - 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully ad cautiously examined the evidence on record. 11. Though PW2 Mohinder Singh stated in the Court that the incident in question had taken place at 9 p.m. but in FIR, he stated that the incident took place at 10.45 p.m. whereas other witnesses stated about the said incident having been taken place at 11 p.m. So there are contradictions with respect to timing which though itself is not sufficient to throw out the case of the prosecution, on this score alone yet it has to be examined in view of the other evidence on record. 12. PW3 Sudesh Kumar admitted litigation with respect to boundary. PW2 Mohinder Singh stated that the cause of the aforesaid incident was that on that day there was final decision in a civil case which was pending in Dharamshala Court. In cross-examination, he categorically admitted that there was only exchange of hot words on that day and he did not even give a passing reference in his cross-examination to this question that he along with other persons was beaten up. - 5 - 13. PW5 Harbhajan Singh is the brother of the complainant. He stated that accused persons were using abusive language against his brother. When he reached the spot, Mohinder Singh was being taken by them towards their house, he tried to intervene but he was also given beatings. In cross examination, though he stated that he had no relationship with the respondents yet other witnesses stated that they are related to each other and admitted that their relations were strained because of the litigation pending in the Court. 14. PW6 Kishori Lal who is alleged to be an eye witness, did not support the case of the prosecution with respect to the incident aforesaid. Another witness Vikram cited as witness in the FIR was not examined. Respondents Rani Devi and Man Singh both are from the family of the respondents who are stated to be more than 70 years old. The entire family appeared to have been implicated so that they could settle their score. In this attempt, the truth got suppressed. 15. Further, the complainant stated that firstly Kulwinder Singh used abusive language thereafter respondents attacked him. But in the FIR he stated that Kulwinder Singh had abused him and when he - 6 - objected to it, respondents Kulwinder Singh, Joni, Usha and Urmila came there and thereafter when he raised hue and cry, his brother Vikram Singh and Harbhajan Singh came to rescue him. It is only thereafter the respondents fisticuffed him. Further reported that only Kulwinder, Joni, Usha and Urmila gave him danda blows but in his examination, as already stated above, he stated that all the accused persons had come together on the spot and gave beatings, is a material contradiction coupled with the acrimonious relations. 16. No independent witness though available from the vicinity was examined. Even Investigating Officer stated that it was inhabited area but he did not make any inquiry from them. Though the testimony of the relation and injured witness can be rejected out right but when there is material contradiction in the version given by the witness(s) with respect to time and manner of the incident which had taken place, in that event, their version cannot be said worth inspiring confidence. 17. In the light of the aforesaid facts, learned trial Court, in my opinion, has rightly given the benefit of doubt to the respondents and the findings of learned trial Court are borne out from the evidence - 7 - on record which require no interference by this Court. In result, the State appeal merit dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 18. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them, at any time during the proceedings of this case. November 11, 2011 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge.