IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.540 of 2001. Date of decision: 6th January, 2009. State of H.P. .. ..Appellant Versus Rajesh Thakur . . ..Respondent 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 respondent: Mr.Lalit Sharma, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This Appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class(5), Shimla, H.P. dated 29.5.2001 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 451, 504, 323 and 506 IPC. The complainant Sh.Surinder Chaudhary, PW-1, lodged a complaint with the Police on 27.11.1999. According to this complaint at about 12.45 p.m. the accused Rajesh Thakur was urinating in the open garage of the complainant. The complainant objected to this. On this the accused abused the complainant and also gave threats. Thereafter, the accused trespassed into the house of the complainant, caught hold of the complainant’s son Pankaj Chaudhary PW-2 by his neck and threatened to do away with his life and set fire to their house. On hearing the noise PW-3 Nitin Marya …2… arrived at the spot and saved them from the accused. On the basis of this complaint, FIR Ext.PW-4/A was lodged. PW-2 was got medically examined. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and challan was filed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial he has been acquitted. Hence, the present appeal by the State. While appearing in Court, the complainant has made various improvements in his statement. In his statement the complainant states that he had informed the police on telephone and the police reached within 15 minutes and then he handed over the complaint to them. He states that his son received scratches on his neck. In the original complaint PW-1/A there is no mention that the accused beat up the son of the complainant. The only allegation was that the accused had caught hold of the son by his neck. PW-2 Pankaj Chaudhary is the injured who has supported the prosecution case. According to him after his father objected to the accused urinating in the garage the accused trespassed into the veranda and caught hold of him and beat him and his clothes were torn. The accused also held out threats to the witness. In the original complaint there is no mention of this witness being beaten up or the clothes being torn and no torn clothes were taken into possession by the police. PW-3 Nitin Marya states that on hearing the noise he came outside his house and saw that the accused had …3… caught hold of PW-2 Pankaj and was abusing him. He saved the complainant from the accused. At that timePW- 1 was not present on the spot. According to him, PW-1 was inside the house. This witness is a tenant of PW-2 Pankaj Chaudhary. The other witnesses are formal witnesses. PW-5 Dr.Ganga Ram examined Pankaj Chaudhary at 4 p.m. and he found a simple injury on his person. There are apparent contradictions in the prosecution case. In the complaint Ext.PW-1/A though it is mentioned that the accused was behaving in an aggressive manner and threatened the complainant and his son, there is no allegation of any beating. There are a number of residential houses in the area but no other independent witnesses have been associated. There is no doubt that some fight may have taken place at the spot but what is the genesis of the fight is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. There are many contradictions in the statements of the three main witnesses and 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. 6th January, 2009. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge