IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.173 of 2002. Date of decision:16.12.2008 State of H.P. .. ..Appellant Versus Barfi Devi and others .. ..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Appellant: Mr.R.M.Bisht, Dy.A.G. For the respondents:Mr.Anil Chauhan, Advocate _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. dated 24.9.2001 whereby the respondents have been acquitted of having committed offences punishable under Sections 325, 323/34 IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.6.1996 at about 7.30 p.m. complainant Krishani Devi along with her son Gian Chand and daughter-in-law Sunita were working in the fields. When Gian Chand tried to make a drain in the field for the outlet of the water the three accused persons got annoyed and started abusing the complainant. Thereafter, the three accused persons gave beatings to the complainant, her son and daughter-in-law with a “Bharota” (wooden stick). Injuries were caused to the complainant, her son and …2… daughter-in-law. This incident was allegedly witnessed by Amar Nath who saved them from the accused. On this complaint being made FIR was lodged, investigation conducted and challan filed. The accused were sent to for trial and pleaded not guilty. After trial they have been acquitted. Hence, the present appeal. At the outset it would be pertinent to mention that Gian Chand son of the complainant who is alleged to have suffered injuries in the incident was not examined in the Court. The Complainant Krishani Devi while appearing in the witness box has supported the version given by her in the complaint. To the similar effect is the statement of PW-3 Sunita. However, when the statements are gone through in detail it is apparent that there are many infirmities in the prosecution version. It is admitted that there is a long standing civil litigation going on between the parties in respect of the land where the dispute is alleged to have taken place. Relations between the parties are not cordial. The complainant in cross examination admits that there was a scuffle between her and her daughter-in-law Sunita. Complainant also admits that she fell from the “beed” (boundary of the field) due to this her fore-arm was injured. The so called independent witness PW-6 Amar Nath also admits that the complainant fell on the spot. He is in fact the son-in-law of the complainant. PW-3 Sunita Devi has stated that one Savitri and many other persons were present on the spot. None of these …3… independent persons have been associated with the investigation. The learned trial Court keeping in view the aforesaid facts has come to the conclusion that it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons caused injuries to Krishani Devi and Sunita Devi. The judgment of the learned trial Court is in accordance with the evidence. There is no error in the same. The appeal is accordingly rejected. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. December 16, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge