IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 152 of 2002. Date of decision: 18.12.2008 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Onkar Singh … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, dated 12.2.2001, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 325 and 323 I.P.C. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 19.9.1997, at about 2.00 P.M., a rapat was lodged with the police by one Puran Singh that today at 12.30 P.M., he was cutting grass in his fields and the respondent had released his cattle in his fields. When he asked the respondent in this regard, he started giving abuses to him and he gave a blow on his right leg and left leg with a drati, which was in the hand of the respondent. He further alleged that he reached the road side, where Achhar Singh met him and he told the occurrence to him and 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - blood was oozing out of his legs. He was brought to the Police Station and then taken to the hospital and the report was lodged with the police. On this rapat, a case was subsequently registered and after investigation, the challan was filed as against the respondent before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondent, leading to his acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. On a perusal of the record of the case, it is clear that there is solitary statement of the complainant. He was inflicted two blows with a drati by the respondent. It is not necessary that the witnesses must have been present since the complainant has not stated that any person had witnessed the occurrence and, therefore, the statement of the complainant has to be appreciated as to whether it is such upon which implicit reliance can be placed to hold the respondent guilty of the charge framed against him or not. Complainant Puran Singh has stepped into the witness box as PW-2 and he has stated that the respondent started giving abuses to him and thereafter, gave a blow with drati on his left leg and right leg and sufficient blood had oozed out at that time. He came to the road side, became unconscious and he told the occurrence to Ashok Kumar and Achhar Singh, who took him to the hospital and then to the police, where report was lodged. He admitted that the respondent was his nephew and they are not on visiting terms with one another. He admitted that he had not told the police in his report that firstly the respondent hit him with a drati on his left leg and then on the right leg. He has stated that he had told the police that the first blow was given with the back side of the drati and the second with sharp edge - 3 - side, which was not so stated in the statement, with which he was confronted. The Medical Officer PW-1 Dr. Sanjay Mahajan, who examined the injured and issued MLC, has stated that both the injuries are possible with blunt side. He has opined that the injuries are possible with blunt edge of Ext. P-1 shown to him today and has stated that the injuries are not possible with sharp edge of Ext. P-1. Therefore, the medical evidence does not corroborate the complainant/injured fully in regard to the injuries sustained by him. Coming to the evidence of other two witnesses to whom the occurrence was told by the complainant after he reached the road and became unconscious, it is clear from the perusal of the report lodged by him and the statement made by him that these persons had not witnessed the occurrence but he had only told them the occurrence when he regained the consciousness. One of them is PW-3 Ashok Kumar, who when examined has stated that he has seen the injury on the person of the injured and blood was oozing out of the leg of the injured. He brought him to Police Station. However, he added that the respondent had given the blow to him, which is contrary to the version given by him in his police statement, with which he was confronted, in which it was never alleged by him that this blow was given by the respondent in his presence. This is contrary to the allegations made by the complainant himself that this witness had not seen the occurrence who was told about the facts by the complainant. The other person named in the report lodged with the police and in the statement made by the complainant PW-2 Puran Singh, is PW-7 Achhar Singh, who was examined, did not support the prosecution story and was declared as hostile. He denied having learnt about the occurrence or seeing the occurrence. The witnesses to the recovery of drati PW-4 Chanda Singh - 4 - and PW-5 Jernail Singh, had also denied that the dratri was produced in their presence, though their signatures are there on the recovery memo prepared in this regard Ext. PW5/A. Complainant PW-2 Puran Singh has stated that this is not the same drati with which the blow was given to him. The Investigating Officer PW-8 S.I. Raghuvir Chand has admitted that the blood stained clothes were not produced by the complainant to him, though it has come up in evidence that sufficient blood had oozed out from the injuries sustained by the complainant. In case, the blood stained clothes had been produced by the complainant and had been taken in possession by the police, it would have given corroboration to the testimony of the complainant. From the above discussion, it follows that the solitary statement of the complainant was not such which could be relied upon without any corroboration to hold the respondent guilty and, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondent beyond any reasonable doubt, cannot be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged forthwith. (V.K. Ahuja), December 18, 2008 Judge (BSS) - 5 -