IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.261 of 1994 Decided on : April 5, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Banka Ram and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General, with Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the Respondents : Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) State is aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Magistrate, whereby the respondents, who were tried for an offence, punishable under Section 324, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Prosecution case, as per record, was like this. On 8th November, 1991, around 8 a.m., when injured Vidya Sagar (PW-2) was serving salt to his sheep, he heard the cries of his two younger brothers. When he went in the direction from which the cries were emanating, he saw his brothers crying and they told that respondent Padam Singh, who was cutting the fence of a field, had given them beating. When PW-2 Vidya Sagar asked Padam Singh why he had beaten the small children, he got enraged and grappled Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… with him (PW-2 Vidya Sagar). Respondent Padam Singh then gave kick and fist blows to PW-2 Vidya Sagar after throwing him on the ground. In the meanwhile, the other two respondents also reached there. Respondent Banka Ram was armed with an axe and respondent Suraj Mani with a darat. Respondent Banka Ram is alleged to have dealt a blow of axe on the left leg of PW-2 Vidya Sagar, which caused a bleeding injury. Respondent Suraj Mani is alleged to have dealt blows of darat from the blunt side on the lower part of the same leg. 3. Matter was reported to the police. PW-2 Vidya Sagar was got medically examined. One sharp-cut injury on the lateral side of the right knee (lower part of the thigh) was noticed. Besides, multiple bruises were also noticed on the left leg. The sharp-cut was opined to have been caused with some sharp-edged weapon. 4. Prosecution examined the injured, PW-2 Vidya Sagar, and three other witnesses, namely PW-1 Khiali Ram, PW-5 Savitri Devi and PW-7 Surat Devi, as eye witnesses of the occurrence. Doctor, who conducted the medical examination, was also examined. He is PW-6 Dr. Ravinder Mokta. PW-1 Khiali Ram is a brother-in-law, PW-6 Savitri Devi is a sister and PW-7 Surat Devi is the mother of PW-2 Vidya Sagar, the injured. 5. PW-1 Khiali Ram is shown to be a liar. He is resident of a different village. He says that he happened to be in the village where the incident took place, as he had gone there to buy a he- goat. At the same time, he says that he did not buy any he-goat on that day, but bought one on the third day of the occurrence. He …3… says that axe blow was given by respondent Banka Ram to PW-2 Vidya Sagar on his left foot. But, no injury was there on the left foot of Vidya Sagar, per deposition of PW-6 Dr. Ravinder Mokta. Again, the witness says that no witness was present on the spot, whereas PW-5 Savitri Devi and PW-6 Surat Devi, a sister and the mother, respectively, of PW-2 Vidya Sagar, the injured, say that they were present on the spot. The said sister and the mother of the injured, however, do not say that PW-1 Khiali Ram was there. 6. Pw-5 Savitri Devi and PW-7 Surat Devi say that they witnessed respondent Padam Singh giving fist and kick blows to PW-2 Vidya Sagar, but PW-2 Vidya Sagar himself does not say that he was beaten up or was given fist or kick blows by respondent Padam Singh. He simply says that respondent Padam Singh got ready to beat him up but in the meanwhile respondents Suraj Mani and Banka Ram came there armed with darat and axe, respectively. Further, PW-2 Vidya Sagar says that his mother and the sister reached the spot only when he raised cries on being dealt darat and axe blows by respondents Suraj Mani and Banka Ram, but PW-5 Savitri Devi and PW-7 Surat Devi say that they saw the two respondents, named above, giving darat and axe blows. Medical evidence says that only one axe blow was given to PW-2 Vidya Sagar. How could have PW-5 Savitri Devi and PW-7 Surat Devi witnessed respondent Banka Ram giving the axe blow to PW-2 Vidya Sagar, when the latter says that they reached on hearing the cries, which he raised on having been dealt axe and darat blows. PW-5 Savitri Devi and PW-7 Surat Devi also say that they went to the spot only on hearing the cries of PW-2 Vidya Sagar. That …4… means, when they heard the cries, the axe and darat blows had already been dealt and, therefore, they could not have been witnesses to this fact. 7. Defence plea is that PW-4 Kartar Singh, the father of PW-2 Vidya Sagar, has sold his house to Shishi Ram, brother of respondent Banka Ram, father of respondent Padam Singh and husband of respondent Suraj Mani, and that now he (the father of the injured) and his family members, including injured, PW-2 Vidya Sagar, went to take the possession of that house back from Shishi Ram by use of force and because of that they have falsely implicated the respondents. It is admitted by PW-2 Vidya Sagar, as also by his father PW-4 Kartar Singh that the latter had sold his house to Shishi Ram and now they want the possession of that house back. This admission corroborates the defence plea. 8. Weapons of offence were produced to the police from the house of PW-2 Vidya Sagar and his father PW-4 Kartar Singh, per statement of PW-2 Vidya Sagar in his cross-examination. It has not been explained how the alleged weapons of offence reached the house of PW-2 Vidya Sagar. It is nobody’s case that the respondents had been disarmed of their weapons on the spot by PW-2 Vidya Sagar or any of the alleged eye-witnesses. If the weapons had not been seized from the respondents on the spot, they were not supposed to be at the house of the injured or his father PW-4 Kartar Singh. The police record, however, shows that darat was produced by respondent Suraj Mani. Recovery of axe had not been effected, as per record. …5… 9. PW-6 Dr. Ravinder Mokta admitted that the injuries were possible, as a result of fall. 10. In view of the abovestated position, we do not think this to be a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J April 5, 2008(sd) ( Surinder Singh ), J