IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 531/2004 Date of decision: 25.7.2011 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Rattan Chand & Ors. ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr. A.K. Bansal Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Devinder Sharma, Amicus curiae. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents in criminal case No. 51-I of 1999 decided on 12.7.2004, under Sections 451, 147, 148, 149, 323 and 324 Indian Penal Code by way of filing the present appeal. 2. Respondents are duly represented but their counsel is not present. In view of the judgment of the apex Court in Md. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam JT 2011 (2) SC 527, the Court can proceed with the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - matter by appointing Amicus Curiae. Therefore, Shri Devinder Sharma, Advocate present in the Court and is ready and willing to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. The paper book is supplied to him. 3. The matter taken up some respite. 4. Learned Amicus Curiae is ready with the arguments. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record. 6. In short, prosecution case can be stated thus. Smt. Kiran Kumari is the daughter-in-law of PW2 Kamla Devi complainant. As per the complainant, Kiran Kumari aforesaid was not keen to do any work at home thus on request, she was sent to Hamirpur, where her husband Tilak Raj had been working in the Gas Agency. She stayed there for about two months and returned on 20.7.1998 along with her two years child. When husband of Kamla Devi was holding the child in his lap, Kiran raised objection. Thereafter she left the place and went to the house of one Pratap Singh along with the child. Next day, she returned home and filed an application before the Panchayat stating that on 21.7.1998 about 8.30 a.m. she was beaten up by the respondents. - 3 - 7. In the evening around 8.30 p.m. when the complainant was cooking food and her husband, who was working in HPPWD, had returned home, respondents came there armed with darat and dandas and gave beatings to the complainant and her husband. Both of them sustained injuries. On hearing the commotion, lot of persons, including Karam Chand, Ram Singh, Sunita, Sushma and Sita Ram reached the spot. They were also allegedly dealt blows by the respondents. 8. Thereafter the matter was reported to the police. The complainant as well as her husband both were got medically examined at PHC Khudian. Police obtained their MLC’s. As per opinion of the Doctor, all the injuries sustained by them were simple in nature. 9. During the investigation of this case, police recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completing the investigation, police came to the conclusion that the respondents are responsible for the offences aforesaid as such presented the challan in the court for their trial. 10. Respondents were accordingly charge sheeted for the offences aforesaid. They denied their guilt and claimed trial. - 4 - 11. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They took up the defence that the complainant party had given beatings to Kiran Kumari and was ousted from their house. She sustained injuries. She was also medically examined and a false case in retaliation was got registered against them. 12. Though the respondents opted to lead evidence in defence but no witness in defence was examined. 13. At the end of the trial, respondents were acquitted on the ground of material contradictions appearing in the statements of the witnesses as also for non-examination of the independent witnesses. 14. As a matter of fact, on the scrutiny of the evidence on record, I find that only the interested witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case. I am aware that their testimonies cannot be rejected out right but if there appears to be material contradictions and the independent witness happens to be present but not examined, prosecution case cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. - 5 - 15. All the prosecution witnesses, namely PW2 complainant Kamla Devi , her husband PW3 Swarn Singh, younger brother of Swarn Singh PW7 Sita Ram have stated a different duration, ranging from 10 minutes to two hours, with respect to fight which ensued inter se the parties. Further one of the witnesses of recovery PW9 Raj Kumar has not supported the case of the prosecution. According to medical expert, the possibility of the injuries having been caused to PW2 and PW3 could be on account of fall. 16. It has also come in evidence that 20/25 persons of the vicinity had gathered and witnessed the alleged occurrence. The complainant had also stated that there are about 35/36 houses in the vicinity but none of them came at the time of occurrence. But in cross examination stated the name of Prem Chand, Kuldeep Chand, Rama Nand, Roshan Lal etc. who arrived there. Surprisingly none of them have been examined so as to lend strength to the prosecution case. 17. Further PW3 her husband has also made the similar statement. But PW4 Sushma Devi categorically stated that Prem Chand, Kaur Chand, Pardeep, Rama Nand, Gian Chand and Roshan Lal - 6 - had come to the spot and witnessed the alleged occurrence whereas PW7 Sita Ram stated that none of them came to the spot and it had become dark. Even Ram Singh and Kartar Singh were accompanying the complainant party at the time of the lodging the report to the police but no reason has been assigned as to why they were not examined as witnesses to prove the case, as alleged by the complainant. Meaning thereby that the truth must be something else than spoken by the interested witnesses. 18. Thus, in the aforesaid circumstances, in my considered opinion, prosecution could not prove its case in accordance with law. As such the respondents have been rightly acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. Therefore, no interference in the acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is called for. The appeal is without any merit, hence dismissed. 19. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them, at any time during the proceedings of this case. 20. While parting with the judgment, I appreciate the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae. July 25, 2011 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge.