IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.333 of 2002. Date of decision: 7th January, 2009. State of H.P. .. ..Appellant Versus Chet Ram and others . . ..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Appellant: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. For the respondents:Mr.Parveen Chandel, vice counsel for the respondents. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This Appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class(2), Amb, District Una, H.P. dated 3.12.2001 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC. The complainant Som Nath lodged a complaint with the police on 26.7.2000 at 1.45 p.m. In this complaint he reported that he has an old house at village Gindpur which has rented out to a Forest Guard. Near his house the accused Chet Ram resides with his family. According to him, on 25.7.2000 at about 6 p.m. when he was returning from Gindpur to Talwara he incidently hit two packets of mangos. Then Ravinder Kumar accused son of Chet Ram accused saw him. When he …2… reached his house Chet Ram, his wife and two sons came there and started arguing with him. They beat him up and Ravinder Kumar bit off a portion of the left ear of the complainant. On hearing the cries of the complainant, Billa son of Harbans Lal and Lekh Raj came and saved him. According to him he could not lodge the complaint immediately since he was unwell and therefore lodged the report on the next day. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and challan was filed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial they have been acquitted. Hence, the present appeal by the State. At the outset, it would be pertinent to note that out of the same incident another rapat was lodged by the accused party also. PW-1 Lekh Raj states that he was returning from the water tap with a bucket of water. He heard a noise and found both the parties quarrelling with each other. He found that blood was coming out of the mouth of the accused Chet Ram’s wife. He also found that blood was coming out from the ear of the complainant due to a teeth bite. In cross examination he stated that Som Nath was in a drunken state at that time and was abusing everybody. PW-2 Sushma Devi did not support the prosecution version. She is a witness to the recovery of the clothes but has changed her stance. PW-4 Savitri denied that anything occurred in her presence. She was declared hostile. …3… PW-6 Som Nath is the injured complainant. He initially repeated what he had stated in the complaint. He admits that PW-7 and number of other villagers appeared at the spot. His tenant was also present when he raised a hue and cry. He also admitted the presence of Savitri Devi. He denied the suggestion that he had given a blow to Naresh Devi wife of Chet Ram as a result of which she lost her tooth or that a report was lodged by Naresh Devi with the Police Post Chintpurni on the same day itself at 9 p.m. PW-7 has only stated that when he reached the place a quarrel was taking place and both the sides were fighting with each other. The accused persons examined two defence witnesses. They produced the original Rapat No.25 Ext.DW-1/A vide which the matter was reported by Naresh Devi to the police on 25.7.2000 itself. DW-2 is the Doctor who examined Naresh Devi and issued MLC Ext.DW- 2/A. She suffered simple injuries on her person. From the evidence on record it was apparent that the complainant was drunk. He had a fight with the accused persons. During this fight he gave a blow to Naresh Devi wife of Chet Ram. It may be true that he also suffered some injuries during this fight but it is more than apparent that the fight started because he was drunk. There is no explanation why the complaint was not lodged on the same date itself. The complainant was not unconscious and was not suffering from such an …4… injury that he could not have gone to the Police Station. It is apparent that after coming to know that the accused persons had lodged a complaint against him he filed the present complaint as a counter blast to the complaint filed by the accused. None of the independent witnesses has supported the complainant. The tenant of the complainant has not been examined. The learned trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused. I find no reason to interfere with the said judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. 7th January, 2009. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge