Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.22 of 2000. Dated of Decision: March 28, 2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Mast Ram and other. ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No . For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Lovnesh Kanwar, Advocate. Surinder Singh,J (oral) : The challenge has been made by the State, to the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court in Case No.59/II/1997, under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Precisely, the prosecution case against the respondents has been that: on 26.1.1997, at about 7.30 a.m., the respondent Mast Ram was lopping Buel tree and the complainant Rupan Devi came there and started collecting the branches of Buel tree, which objected by him and is alleged to have given her a darat blow on the head. Respondent Indru Ram, who was nearby, he gave kick blows on her stomach and respondent Dina Nath gave beatings with a stick. She sustained injuries on her head, back and the stomach. She was rescued on the spot by Savitri Devi (PW3). The respondent ran away from the spot. Thereafter the complainant went to the police and lodged the report Ex.PW1/A. The complainant was got medically examined. Her Medico Legal Certificate is Ex.PW7/A. According to Dr. P.C. Saini (PW7), she had clear cut wound on her scalp measuring 5 cm. x 1 cm. x 1.2 cm. with coagulated blood. There was also - 2 - swelling and tenderness in the thumb of the right hand and according to him, injury No.1 can be sustained by a darati (sickle) Ex.P1. Police visited the spot, prepared the site plan Ex.PW8/A, took into possession darati Ex.P1 vide memo Ex.PW4/B and after recording the statements of the witnesses, the challan was presented against the respondents in the court for trial. The respondents were charge-sheeted under Sections 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution led its evidence to prove the charges aforesaid. Besides examining the complainant Rupan Devi PW-1, also examined Rangila Ram (PW2), Savitri Devi (PW3), Ranchoo Ram (PW4), Constable Ram Singh (PW5), Sher Singh, Inspector (PW6), Dr. P.C. Saini (PW7) and HC Sarwan Singh, the Investigating Officer as PW8. The respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The circumstances which were found attendant were put to each of them, to which they have denied. At the end of trial, the respondents were acquitted and their acquittal has been assailed by the State in this appeal. According to learned Deputy Advocate General, Shri Rajesh Mandhotra, the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in the right perspective and it has wrongly placed the implicit reliance upon the minor contradictions and the discrepancies about the recovery of the weapon of offence. If the evidence on record is looked into carefully, there are grounds to convert the acquittal into conviction. On the other hand, Shri Lovnesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal. According to him, the grounds for acquittal are born out from the record. I have carefully scanned the evidence on record. The complainant in her initial report to the police named all the three respondents but before the trial court as PW1 she has only named Mast Ram respondent - 3 - and did not whisper even a single word against others. In other words, she has not implicated them in any manner, which is a material contradiction and an improvement as well. According to PW4 Ranchoo Ram, the apple of contention inter-se the parties is Buel tree. The land over which the Buel tree stood, fell in the possession of respondent Mast Ram whereas this land is claimed by the complainant. Thus there appears to be a dispute regarding the possession of land. Her version is tainted with selfish motive. She deposed before the court that at the time of alleged incident, she was alone and in the report Ex.PW1/A, she has stated that PW3 Savitri Devi came to the spot when the respondents fled away. Savitri Devi was examined in the court, she stated that she was present on the spot and she was also given a danda blow by Dina Nath respondent which fact did not find mentioned in the complaint. There is also a material contradiction about the use of the weapon of offence. PW1 has stated that injury was caused to her by respondent Mast Ram with a darat, but when she was examined in the court, she has stated that it was the sickle (darati Ex.P1). There is a marked difference in shape and size of both these instruments of cutting. In the aforesaid background, the discrepancies which have been pointed out by the trial court and contradictions in the statement of PW1 Rupan Devi are not minor in nature, but goes to the very root of the case of the prosecution. Further as per PW-1, 4-5 ladies were also present on the spot, then why their names were not given by her in the report and even during the investigation of the case to the police. Thus for the reasons aforesaid, the evidence of the prosecution appears to be not above board and the learned trial court has rightly, not relied upon it. As such, I do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment. Therefore, it calls no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. - 4 - The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by each of them at any stage during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. March 28, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.