IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. 166 of 2004 Date of Decision : July 19, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant v. Maheshan Devi & Ors. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. A.G. For the respondents: Mr. B. C. Verma, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) . For an offence which is alleged to have been committed on 17.12.1997, accused were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 26.9.2003 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jawali, Distt. Kangra, in Crl. Case No.21-II of 1998, titled as State of H.P. vs. Maheshan Devi & Ors., the accused stand acquitted of the charged offence. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 18.12.1997 at 11.30 a.m., complainant Smt. Beasan Devi was working in her field. She saw accused Roshan lal cut the bamboo trees which was objected to by her as the same belonged to her. This led to an altercation. Accused No.1 Maheshan Devi and accused No.2 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Jamna Devi gave beatings to the complainant. Accused Roshan Lal also gave a blow of darat (sickle) to the complainant as a result of which she suffered injuries. 3. Smt. Beasan Devi lodged a complaint (Ext.PW-1/A) with the Police on the basis of which F.I.R. dated 31.12.1997 (Ext.PW-7/A) under Section 325/34 IPC was registered with Police Station, Jawali against the accused persons. The complainant was medically examined by Dr. Raman Sharma (PW-6) who issued his MLC (Ext.PW-1/B). The medical record (Ext.PW-1/C) based on the X-Ray (Ext.PW-6/A) was also taken by the police. Statements of the witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer and on completion of the investigation challan was presented in the Court for trial. 4. The accused persons were charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC was also recorded. The Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offence, hence the present appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 6. From the statement of Dr. Raman Sharma (PW-6), it is evident that complainant Smt. Biasan Devi (PW-1) suffered injuries. This however, would not mean that the same were 3 inflicted by the accused. The prosecution has to prove the same by leading a clear, cogent and convincing material. 7. As per the version of PW-1, the incident took place on 17.12.1997 and yet as per the version of HC Hasham Ali (PW-7) the report was lodged only on 18.12.1997, which fact stands corroborated by F.I.R. (Ext.PW-7/A). Now why was the incident reported to the police after a period of 24 hours has not been explained. In the present case the delay is unexplainable and hence fatal. 8. In the complaint, PW-1 does not mention the fact that accused Roshan Lal had given beatings to her whereas in Court she has improved her statement and deposed that he had given her a blow of sickle. In the complaint she does not mention the presence of accused Tilak Raj at all. In fact in the complaint it is mentioned that accused Tilak Raj and Maheshan Devi came later on. Hence, the prosecution case that all the accused persons had come with a common intention to cause injuries to the complainant appear to be false. 9. Now in Court this witness has improved upon her statement. She has stated that all the accused persons were present at the spot. This version of hers is not only an improvement but is in fact a contradiction. She has further improved upon her version that on receiving a blow she became unconscious and blood started oozing from her injury. Her 4 version thus cannot be relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused. Her testimony does not inspire confidence. 10. Now Smt. Maya Devi (PW-2) has also improved upon her original version given to the police with which she was confronted. Originally she stated that at the time when the alleged incident took place she was not present at the spot and was in her house. In Court she has stated that she reached at the time of the alleged incident. Further, in her cross- examination she clarified that she did not see any sickle. She further admits that a case filed by the accused persons is pending. In the said case the complainant is an accused. Therefore, her testimony cannot also be relied upon as she has not seen the occurrence of incident. In fact her testimony belies the prosecution version. 11. Sh. Malkiyat Singh (PW-3) has added a new twist to the entire story. According to him, the police came after 7 to 8 days whereas as per PW-1 the police reached the spot after 3 days. Further as per him the complainant had become unconscious and blood had started oozing from the injuries received by her. Now this version is not supported by PW-1 & PW-2. There is nothing on record to prove that any blood was found on the spot or on the body of the injured person. 12. Witnesses S/Sh. Parkash Chand (PW-4) and Rachhpal Singh (PW-5) who were the only independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case at all. They have been declared 5 hostile and inspite of they being cross-examined nothing material has come out in support of the prosecution. 13. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Mohammed Ankoos and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the person has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. July 19, 2010. (Sanjay Karol) (rana) Judge.