IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 639 of 2001. Date of decision: 23.10.2008. State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Salochna Devi and another … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, dated 15.12.2000, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 451, 324, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 11.5.1995, at about 6.45PM, a report was lodged with the police by Ms. Pratibha Thakur, that at about 11.45AM during day time, when she was collecting the wheat kept for drying in the Verandah of her house, respondent Anup Singh who is son of her paternal uncle came there and started abusing her and asked her as to who had given beatings to his mother 2 days ago. In the meanwhile, respondent Salochna, mother of accused Anup Singh, also came there and started abusing the complainant and her family members. On hearing the abuses, when her father Satypal 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - came out in the Verandah of the house, respondent Anup started giving beatings to him with fist blows and when she intervened, respondent Anup Singh hit on her left wrist with darati. Thereafter, she alongwith her father raised an alarm and PWs Shila Devi and Praveen came there and saved them from the accused persons. It was further alleged that Shila Devi snatched darati from hands of accused Anup and kept the same with her. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court who tried the respondents as mentioned above leading to their acquittal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Coming to the evidence led by the prosecution, the complainant has been examined as PW-1 Pratibha Thakur, who stated that when she was working in her Verandah, both the respondents came there and Anup Singh asked her as to who had given beatings to his mother and Salochna started giving abuses to her. Her father came from inside and she stated that Anup Singh was having a darati with which he hit her father but the blow was inflicted upon her person. She further stated that respondent Salochna pulled her from arms and hair and gave her fist blows. She stated that she and her father raised an alarm and Shila Devi and Praveen came there and they were rescued. The complainant was not confronted with the report Ext. PW1/A since she has stated the version in a different manner and before the accused can take any benefit of the contradictions or infirmities, the complainant was required to be confronted with this report Ext. PW1/A, which was not done. However, this fact cannot be ignored about improvement. The complainant had stated in the report that abuses were given by Salochna to her and she also gave a fist blow on her face. But in the - 3 - statement made in Court, the complainant has stated differently regarding pulling of her arms and hair by Salochna accused. Coming to the testimony of her father PW-2 Satyapal, he has stated that he heard the noise of abuses and when he went out, Anup Singh attempted to give blow to him with a darati and he tried to stop the same with his hands and then Anup Singh pressed his throat and when Pratibha tried to save him, she was attacked with the darati on her left arm and blood started oozing out. He further stated that Anup Singh pressed his throat and he slipped and then he raised an alarm. He has no where stated about the fist blow given to his daughter or pulling of her arms and hair by Salochna. It was also not alleged in the FIR that the throat of the witness was pressed by Anup Singh and the only mention was in regard to the fist blow or darati blow on the person of PW-1 Pratibha Thakur. From the perusal of the statement of both the witnesses, it is clear that there is a long standing enmity in between the complainant party and the accused persons in regard to the property since they are closely related to one and another as mentioned above. The evidence of both the witnesses clearly shows that the witnesses came to the spot when the blow had already been given. Out of the two eye witnesses PW-3 Praveen Kumar, who is the real brother of the father of the accused as well as the father of the complainant, has stated that he had come to the house of Shila Devi to fetch water for animals. But it has been admitted in evidence by him that the water was available nearby in the Bouri for the animals where he was grazing his cattle. His house is at a distance of 1 KM away from the place of occurrence and his presence does not appear in natural course of events. Moreover, he has also enmity with the accused persons and he did not support the prosecution story fully and was declared as hostile and was allowed to be cross- examined by the learned A.P.P. for the State. The second eye witness - 4 - PW-4 Shila Devi, who came to the place of occurrence, has also stated that the blow had already been inflicted and she has also enmity with the accused party as admitted by her. Therefore, these statement of the eye witnesses and her father have not been fully corroborated by these alleged independent witnesses who are interested witnesses. The enmity is a double edged weapon which can either be used to cause the injury and can be used to falsely implicate the accused persons. In such circumstances, when the relation in between the parties are strained, the evidence of the prosecution has to be appreciated with more care and caution. The learned trial Court has considered the evidence and keeping in view the enmity in between the parties had not relied upon the testimonies of the complainant and her father and that of the alleged independent witnesses produced by the prosecution. The findings so recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. (V.K. Ahuja), October 23, 2008 Judge (BSS) - 5 -