1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 505 of 2001 Date of Decision: 3 .07.2008. ____________________________________________________________ State of H P. Appellant. Versus Suresh Sharma and others. Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Sh.J. S. Guleria, Law Officer. For respondents. :Shri S.D. Gill, Advocate. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J . (oral) In brief, the prosecution case is that the complainant Ravinder Singh was the friend of Virender Thakur (PW2). The conductor and the driver of Virender Thakur had given beatings to Nishu and Nitu who were known to the complainant. The complainant, because of his friendship with Virender Thakur, purported to affect a compromise. Thus on 16-9-1996 around 4.00 P.M, Ravinder complainant along with his friend Virender Thakur were engaged in talking with Nitu and Nishu near Plaza Restaurant, Middle Bazar, Shimla but this move of compromise was objected to by Nitu and Nishu and they asked as to who was the complainant to interfere into their matters. There was a worldly dual between Nishu and Nitu with the complainant. In the mean time, one shop-keeper to whom the complainant knew by face, gave fisticuffs to the complainant and also hit him with a rod. Nishu and Nitu also attacked the complainant with stones and bottle of campa cola. In that episode, the complainant lost his tooth. Blood came out of his mouth. He sustained the injuries but due to the intervention of PW2 Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Varinder, he was saved. Policemen from the Reporting Room reached the spot immediately. On seeing them, the respondent ran away. On the personal search of the complainant, the Police recovered a knife and a knuckleduster. Police prepared the site plan and took into possession his shirt and the under-vest. Complainant Ravinder Singh was taken for medical examination. He was medically examined by Dr. Jatinder (PW4). He noticed four simple injuries on his person which were in the form of lacerated wounds except the injury No.4 where the incisor (upper) tooth was missing with clotted blood in the gum. PW5 Dental Doctor opined that the nature of injury No.4 to the tooth was grievous and the Medico Legal Certificate Exhibit PW5/A was issued by him. After completing the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court for trial of the respondents under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents were charge-sheeted. They denied the charge and claimed trial. Prosecution examined its witnesses to prove the case. Respondents took up the plea of innocence and the false implication in the case. According to Suresh Sharma respondent, he was standing in the shop of Ravinder, he had a knife in his hand and was quarreling with some persons and many persons had gathered there. Police arrived at the spot and the friend of Ravinder was found having a knuckleduster in his possession. At the end of the trial, respondents were acquitted of the charges by the learned trial Court on the ground that the knuckleduster and the knife found in the possession of the complainant as stated by PW2 Virender Thakur showed his intention to fight as he had come prepared for the same. . Further the testimony of PW1 Ravinder Singh complainant and PW2 are contradictory to each other which rendered the prosecution story highly doubtful. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have carefully gone through the record. As a matter of fact, PW1 Ravinder Kumar complainant did not fully support the prosecution case, as such he was 3 declared hostile by the prosecution. When examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, he denied very material facts but half heartedly tried to substantiate his case. He also denied having recovered from him the knife and knuckleduster by the Police. He further denied that there was some worldly feud with any other person. According to him, the shop keeper had given him iron blow on his head and further stated that Nitu and Nishu had pelted stones and bricks and campa cola bottle upon him and his tooth got broken. He did not state as to who had initiated quarrel. His witness Virender Thakur (PW2) has stated that he had gone to the complainant to effect some compromise with respect to the earlier dispute but Nishu and Nitu picked up the quarrel with him. In the mean-time, Suresh respondent hit Ravinder with iron road which fact was disclosed by PW1. Some stones and bricks were also hurled, in that process the complainant lost his tooth and he himself lost the gold chain. He further stated that the Police took him and the complainant to the Police Station and recovered the knife and the knuckleduster from the possession of the complainant which was taken into possession vide memo Exhibit PW2/A. In his cross-examination, he has stated that when Nishu had fled away from the spot, the complainant followed them. He along with others also ran away from the spot. He also admitted that when the complainant reached in the Middle Bazar, many people were present there and they were beating Ravinder (PW1) and his other friends had fled away. He did not know who had hit whom. PW3 Sohan Lal, police official, has stated that he went to the spot. Many persons were present there. No-body revealed anything about the alleged incident. On the critical examination of the aforesaid witnesses, I find material and glaring contradictions in their statements. The incident had taken in a broad day light. Many persons were present on the spot. It was a busy area but the Police could not get even a single witness to reveal about the alleged incident. Statement of PW1 and PW2 discussed above, is highly contradictory and in- consistent which cannot be relied upon. It is also not clear from the record as to 4 who was the aggressor. The respondents could not be connected with the offence charged by leading a cogent and reliable evidence. It is a fact that the complainant had sustained injuries in the said incident but as to who was responsible for the same is not clear. He himself was having knife and nuckle duster. His own intention could not be said to be bonfide in the light of the back ground. Thus, the respondents were rightly acquitted by the trial Court. The reasoning for acquittal is born out from the record which cannot be said to be perverse. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal filed by the State has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. (Surinder Singh) Judge. July 3, 2008. (bm)