IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.488 of 2002 Decided on: 27th October, 2009 State of H.P …..Appellant. VERSUS Partap Singh …..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Appellant: Mr.Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent: Ms.Archana Dutt, Advocate. Deepak Gupta,Judge (Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 9.4.2002 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Palampur, District Kangra in Criminal Case No. 72-II/2000 whereby he has acquitted the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant Kamna Devi lodged a report Ext.PW1/A with the police post, Thural alleging that when she was cutting grass, her father-in-law, accused Partap Singh objected to her taking grass from the spot and asked her not to do so. When she did not accept his suggestion, he gave her a blow of the ‘Darat’ causing simple injuries on her arm and also threatened her to kill. On the basis of this report, an FIR Ext.PW4/B was registered. After investigation, the challan was filed against the accused who was summoned. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial, the Learned Trial Court acquitted the accused. Hence the present appeal by the State. 3. The version of the complainant Kamna Devi in the initial report was that when she was cutting grass from the fields, the accused asked her not to do so and due to this reason, an altercation took place. She further stated that she was rescued by her husband’s younger brother’s wife Sureshtha Devi. 4. While appearing in the witness box as PW/1 Kamna Devi gives a totally different version. According …3… to her, it was her father-in-law who was cutting the branches of the trees and she objected to his cutting the branches of the trees. When, despite her protest, the accused tried to take away the branches from the field, she tried to stop him from doing so. Thereafter, the accused gave her a blow of the ‘darat’ on her arm. She also stated that she was rescued by her mother-in-law and one Achar Singh. 5. It is apparent that the version given by the complainant in the initial report is totally different from a testimony in the Court. Even the names of the eye witnesses have been changed. Whereas in the initial report, she had stated that Sureshtha Devi had saved her, in evidence, she states that her mother-in-law and Sh.Achar Singh rescued her. However, none of these three persons were examined. Secondly, whereas in the initial report, the complaint has stated that the altercation took place when she was cutting the grass in the field, in the statement before the Court, she states that it was her father-in-law who was cutting the branches of the trees and she objected to the same. These two versions are totally contradictory and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of the complainant. …4… 6. The learned Trial Court was correct in acquitting the accused on account of these material contradictions. There is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly rejected. 27th October, 2009 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge.