IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 245 of 2003. Date of Decision: 13th May, 2010. _______________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus Sonki alias Harbans Lal and another ..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Virender Singh Rathore, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) Respondents were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in Case RBT No.73-II/ of 2002, decided on 24th February, 2003, by the learned trial Court. Their acquittal has been challenged by the State in this appeal. 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 3. The admitted facts of the case are that PW-4 Banarsi Dass was a tenant in the premises of Deep Nath. It is Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - alleged that on 4th December, 2001 at about 8.00 p.m., he was present in the tenanted premises. In the meantime, respondent Sonki alias Harbans Lal entered in his room with an iron rod followed by Amar Nath with a Danda. Sonki respondent dealt an iron rod blow on his head, another respondent gave a Danda blow and fisticuffed him. The matter was reported to the police, which culminated into FIR Ext.PW-5/A. Police started investigation, prepared the site plan Ext.PW-8/A, took into possession rod Ext.P.1 vide memo Ext.PW-1/A. Complainant Banarsi Dass was got medically examined. His Medico Legal Certificate is Ext.PW- 7/A. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing, Challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondents. 4. The respondents were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences. After the full-fledged trial, they were acquitted on the ground that there have been material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses which throw a doubt on the prosecution story. 5. In the instant case, besides examining the complainant/injured the prosecution also produced PW-2 Milap Chand and PW-3 Parshotam Lal to substantiate its version that the respondents had committed the house- tres-pass and gave beatings to the complainant as aforesaid. Although, the complainant tried to substantiate - 3 - the prosecution case, but PW-3 Parshotam Lal further shattered its version. According to him, no quarrel or beatings had taken place inside the room as alleged by the complainant. The prosecution witnesses with respect to committing house-trespass are not unanimous in their version. Therefore, it casts a doubt thus, the offence of the alleged house-tres-pass is not proved. 6. Further, there is another glaring contradiction in the prosecution evidence. PW-4 Banarsi Dass testified that he was given the blow on his head with an iron rod by Sonki respondent, but PW-3 Parshotam Lal in his examination-in- chief itself stated that Amar Nath gave the iron rod blow to the complainant which hit on his head. Further, he also materially contradicted the prosecution version by saying that the iron rod was in the hands of co-accused Amar Nath, which caused damage to the very foundation of the prosecution case. The above contradictions show that either he was not an eye witness or the prosecution story as projected against the respondents is wrong for obvious reasons. 7. Another witness who was examined by the prosecution to lend strength to the version of the complainant is PW-2 Milap Chand. He stated that he did not see any quarrel inter-se the respondents and the complainant. The examination of the prosecution witnesses - 4 - further shows that 5/6 persons had gathered on the spot when the quarrel was going on, but none of them was cited as a witness to lend strength to the prosecution case. 8. The recovery of the alleged iron rod Ext.P.1 appears to be a farce as it was alleged to have been shown by the police to the recovery witness in the Police Station itself. Therefore, in these circumstances, the very nexus of the prosecution case is shattered by the contradictory versions made by the prosecution witnesses, which caused doubt on the probity of its case. 9. Learned trial Court had also taken note of the above contradictions and rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution is unable to prove the case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is borne out from the record and this acquittal of the respondents does not require any interference. The appeal is without any merit, hence the same is dismissed. 10. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of this case. May 13, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)