IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Criminal Appeal No. 657 of 2002. Judgment reserved on :26.8.2009. Date of decision: 16. 9. 2009. State of Himachal Pradesh .…Appellant. Vs Om Prakash and another ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the Appellant : Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. K.D.Sood, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 29.4.2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra in Criminal Case No. 13/II of 1997 acquitting the respondents under Sections 323, 324, 325, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that PW-2 Ramesh Kumari complainant had sown wheat crop on Shalmat land situate in village Muhal. On 4.5.1996 at about 1.30 p.m. complainant and her daughters were cutting the wheat crop sown by them in the shamlat land, accused Om Prakash and his wife Veena Devi came there. Om Prakash caught hold the complainant by her hair and Veena Devi ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 inflicted fist blows on her. Om Prakash also inflicted fist blows on the mouth of the complainant as a result of which two teeth from the lower jaw of the complainant uprooted and one tooth became mobile. PW-7 Prem Lata daughter of the complainant, PW-5 Pritam Chand and PW-3 Shakuntala Devi reached the spot and saved the complainant. The accused while leaving the spot threatened to do away with her life. The complainant reported the matter to the police at Police Station, Dehra and lodged FIR Ex.PW-9/A. The investigation was conducted by PW-9 ASI Ujjagar Singh, who on completion of investigation submitted challan against the accused persons. The accused were charged for offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses and placed on record documentary evidence. The statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. They denied the prosecution case. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, acquitted the accused, hence the State has come in appeal. 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. Mr. R.P.Singh, learned Asstt. Advocate General has submitted that the court below has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and has erred in acquitting the respondents. Per contra Mr. K.D.Sood, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has thoroughly examined the material on record and has rightly acquitted the respondents. He has supported the impugned judgment. 3 6. PW-1 Dr. Kulbhushan has stated that on 4.5.1996 he had examined Smt. Ramesh Kumari and issued MLC Ex.PW-1/A. He has stated that injury No.2 is not possible by fist blow as corresponding injury on the lips of injured was not present. PW-2 Smt. Ramesh Kumari has stated that Prem Lata is her daughter whereas Surinder Kumar and Sunil Kumar are her sons. On 4.5.1996 at about 1.30 p.m. she and her daughter Prem Lata were harvesting wheat, Surinder and Sunil her sons were carrying the bundles of harvested wheat. Om Prakash and his wife came there. Om Prakash caught her from hair and his wife gave kick and fist blows. Om Prakash gave one fist blow on her mouth as a result of which blood came out from the mouth and her two teeth were uprooted and one tooth became mobile. She sustained other injuries on her person. Her daughter tried to save her but Om Prakash pushed her. On hearing the cries, Suresh Kumari, Pritam Singh and his wife Shakuntala reached the spot and they rescued her. The accused threatened that they would kill her. She reported the matter vide Ex.PW-2/A to police. She was medically examined. 7. In cross-examination, she has stated that accused had sown wheat in their own fields. She has denied that she had cut the wheat of the accused. She has also denied that Veena came there and objected the cutting of wheat by the complainant. She has denied that she chewed one finger of Veena. She has also denied that she scratched the face of Veena with her nails. She admitted that Desh Raj, his wife and Suresh Kumari came on the spot. She has admitted that Shakuntala Devi and her husband have cases with Veena and Om Prakash which are pending. 4 8. PW-3 Shakuntala Devi has stated that Veena etc. uprooted the wheat crop of Jaswant Singh. She heard the cries of children and reached the spot and saw Om Prakash and his wife were beating Ramesh Kumari. Pritam Singh and Suresh Kumari also reached the spot. Om Parkash uprooted two teeth of Ramesh Kumari by fist blow and blood came out from them. She, Pritam Singh, Suresh Kumari rescued Ramesh Kumari. Ramesh Kumari after uprooting of teeth became unconscious. Three children of Ramesh Kumari were on the spot. In cross-examination, she has admitted that right from 1988 she has litigation with Om Prakash and Veena Devi. She has admitted that Desh Raj and his wife reached the spot before she reached the spot. 9. PW-4 Dr. B.C. Kapila has stted that he had examined Ramesh Kumari for dental opinion. PW-5 Pritam Chand has stated that Om Prakash and Veena Devi were beating Ramesh Kumari. Veena Devi was holding Ramesh Kumari and Om Prakash gave fist blow on the face of Ramesh Kumari as a result of which her two teeth uprooted. The daughter of Veena Devi was standing there and was weeping. He got released Ramesh Kumari from the two accused. In the meantime Suresh Kumari and Shakuntla also reached the spot. Blood oozed out from the mouth of Ramesh Kumari and she became unconscious. In cross-examination, he has stated that Desh Raj and his wife Saroj came to the spot after him. There were about 10 – 12 persons on the spot. Trilok Chand and Roshan Lal were on the spot before witness reached there. 10. PW-6 H.C. Manjeet Singh has proved rapats Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-6/A. PW-7 Prem Lata is the daughter of the complainant. She has stated that Veena Devi caught hold her mother and Om 5 Prakash gave beatings to her mother with kick and fist blows. Om Prakash gave fist blow on the face of her mother as a result of which her two teeth were broken and blood oozed out. She tried to intervene but Om Prakash pushed her and she fell down in a drain. Pritam Singh saved her mother from the accused. Shakuntla Devi and Suresh Kumari also reached the spot and rescued her mother. The accused threatened to do away with their lives. In cross- examination, she has stated that Veena Devi asked the complainant party not to cut their wheat crop. PW-8 Suresh Chand Inspector is a formal witness. PW-9 ASI Ujjagar Singh is the Investigating Officer. 11. The prosecution has not examined any independent witness to corroborate the version of PW-2 Ramesh Kumari complainant. PW-5 Pritam Chand and his wife PW-3 Shakuntla have tried to support the version of the prosecution but their testimonies cannot be relied easily inasmuch as both are highly interested witnesses as they are in litigation with the accused since the year 1988. It has come in evidence that independent witnesses Smt. Saroj and her husband Desh Raj, Roshan Lal and Trilok Chand were on the spot but they have not been examined by the prosecution. The accused have taken the stand which has emerged from the cross-examination of various prosecution witnesses that the complainant was illegally cutting the wheat crop of accused which was objected by the accused. PW-7 Prem Lata has stated that Veena Devi asked the complainant not to cut wheat crop from their field. PW-1 Dr. Kulbhushan on 5.5.1996 had examined wife of Om Prakash and found various injuries on her person. The prosecution has not explained the injuries on the person of Veena Devi. 6 12. There is conflict in oral evidence and medical evidence. In MLC Ex.PW-1/A two injuries were found on the person of the complainant. Injury No.1 in the MLC Ex.PW-/A indicates bite mark on forearm but PW-2 has not stated in her statement that any accused had given teeth bite on her forearm. The second injury in the MLC is missing two teeth and one loose tooth but there is no corresponding injury on the lips as well as on the tongue. PW-4 Dr. B.C.Kapila, Dental Surgeon, who has examined PW-2 has stated that she was suffering from periodontitis . The injuries on the person of the complainant in light of oral evidence are not enough to record a finding of guilt against the respondents. 13. PW-1 Dr. Kulbhushan found injury on the finger of Veena accused. PW-1 has opined that if complainant had chewed the finger of Veena who pulled out her finger forcefully in that case there is possibility that the teeth of complainant could have been uprooted. This possibility is more probable in view of the statement of Dr. B.C. Kapila who has stated that complainant was suffering from periodontitis. 14. It has come on record that there were about 10 – 12 persons on the spot, the prosecution has examined only PW-3 Shakuntla Devi her husband PW-5 Pritam Chand and PW-7 Prem Lata. PW-3 Shakuntla and PW-5 Pritam Chand have not good relations with the respondents. Prem Lata is the daughter of complainant. The prosecution has not examined any independent witness and no explanation has been given that despite the presence of independent witnesses on the spot why they were not examined. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken a possible view from the evidence on record. It cannot be said that the view 7 taken by the learned trial Court is perverse and does not emerge from the material on record. In appeal simply other view is possible is no ground to reverse the acquittal. The learned Assistant Advocate General has failed to make out any case for interference. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The bail bonds are discharged. September 16, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (GR) Judge.