1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.916 of 2010. Decided on: October 6, 2010. ___________________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ….. Petitioner. Versus Neela Devi and another. …..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the petitioner : Mr. J.S. Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. For the respondents : None. SURINDER SINGH,J (oral) : The respondents were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as such sought leave to appeal by the State. 2. Heard and gone through the record of the learned trial Court. 3. The allegations against the respondents have been that on 31.5.2007, at 7.00 p.m., at Badvar, they had restrained the complainant Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 Indru Devi, Manju Devi and Shiv Ram from using the village path and gave beatings and caused simple injuries to them, whereas Indru Devi sustained the grievous hurt i.e. fracture of palm (metacarpal bone). With respect to the same incident, the respondents had also lodged a report with the police, on the basis of which FIR against the complainant party was also lodged. In the case filed by the respondents, challan was prepared against the complainant party and they were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of ` 100/- each by the Panchayat, whereas in the instant case, respondents were acquitted by the learned trial Court, by giving them the benefit of doubt. 4. In defence, the respondents had placed on record, statement of respondent Prakash Chand Ex.DC recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of which FIR No. 249/09 was registered and after the investigation, the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the complainant party for the offences punishable under Sections 3 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was prepared by the police and challan was presented in the Court, in turn, it was sent to the Panchayat concerned, since aforesaid sections fell within the purview/ cognizance of the Panchayat. In the same incident, respondents had also sustained injuries. The copy of their medical certificate is Ex.DG. The record also transpires that the complainant Indru Devi and Manju Devi were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of ` 100/- each by the Panchayat, which fact has also been admitted by PW1 Smt. Kanchan Devi. 5. PW7 ASI Shyam Lal had investigated the present case as well as the case registered by the respondents against the complainant party with respect to the same incident. Significantly, when examined in the Court, PW7 showed his ignorance about the case registered against the complainant Indru Devi and Manju Devi at the behest of respondent Prakash Chand. Thus, the prosecution case lacks probity. 4 6. Further, in the instant case, prosecution has failed to prove as to who was aggressor and how the respondents sustained the injuries, though simple in nature, but against the aforesaid background when the Investigating Officer himself has suppressed the truth from the Court, it assumes importance. 7. When the respondents had taken plea in this case that the complainant party was the aggressor and they were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, the learned trial Court had rightly given the benefit of doubt to the respondents, as such, the petition seeking leave to appeal is rejected. (Surinder Singh), Judge October 6, 2010. (Pds)