IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 691 of 2000 Date of Decision: 25.3.2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus. Paramjit Singh & ors. .. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Appellant(s): Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General For the Respondent(s): Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral).. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 10.8.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una in Case No. 12-1-1999, whereby he has acquitted the accused of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 325,323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case in brief is that complainant Gurinder Kaur came to the police station on 10.12.1998 at about 9 am . She made a report that on the previous day, i.e. 9.12.1998 at about 5.30 pm, the accused came nor her house and were raising a fence by using thorny bushes (Bar). She requested - 2 - them not to do so and thereafter she was abused by the accused. She asked them not to abuse her. At this Jagpal Singh gave her fist blow on her face and her tooth became loose and blood started oozing out from her mouth. The remaining accused also gave her blows. She was saved by Sucha Singh, Kamaljit Singh and Darshan Kaur. She further stated that she could not report the matter to the police on the previous day since her husband came late at night and therefore, she reported the matter to the police on the next day. The complainant was medically examined and on receipt of MLC, FIR was lodged and challan was put up in Court. The accused were summoned and charged for committing the offences aforesaid. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW1 Gurinder Kaur is the complainant. In court, she has repeated what she has stated in her complaint. She in her cross- examination has admitted that the accused were putting the thorny fence on their own land. According to her, she had never seen Sucha Singh and Kamaljit Singh earlier and they were not known to her and that there houses are not near her house. She further states that 10-15 persons were present when this occurrence took place. She has also admitted that there is a Police Post in the village itself. She has further admitted that - 3 - the villagers had been taking soil from the fields of the accused persons and therefore they were putting up the fence. PW2 Sucha Singh states that on 9.12.1998 at about 5.30 pm., he had gone to bring tin sheets from Gurmail Singh. He heard some noise and reached on the spot. He saw the accused persons fighting with the complainant and Jagpal gave a fist blow to the complainant. In cross-examination, he states that his house is situated at a distance of about 150 metres from the house of the complainant and there is only one house between the two houses. PW3 Kamaljit Singh has stated that when the accused persons were raising the fence of thorny bushes and the complainant requested them not to do so, the accused abused her and there was a scuffle. When they heard a noise, Sucha Singh who had brought a tractor came there and he also went with him and found that the accused persons had caught hold of the complainant and blood was oozing out from her mouth. According to him, her house is situated at a distance of 1 km from the place of occurrence. According to PW4 Darshan Kaur, she was informed by her children that their Aunt (complainant) was being beaten up. She immediately went to the spot and found that the accused - 4 - persons were beating the complainant. In the meantime, Sucha Singh and Kamaljit Singh came and rescued the complainant. PW5 Dr. Vipan Chaudhary has conducted the medical examination of the complainant. According to him, the dental injury found on the tooth of the complainant could be caused by fist blow. In cross-examination, he has stated that the injury is possible by a fall on a hard surface. To the similar effect is the statement of Dr. Nikhal. One fact which stands out is that even according to the complainant, the thorny fence was being raised by the accused on the boundary of their own land. The question that arises is that if the fence was being raised by the accused on their own land what objection could the complainant have to the same? Some fight has taken place but what is the genesis of the same is not very clear. The presence of the so-called eye-witnesses on the spot seems to be very doubtful. All the witnesses said that they reached the spot after they heard a noise. If four men were beating up a poor woman she would have suffered many injuries if the incident had lasted for such a long time. Another very surprising aspect is that the complainant herself has stated that she does not know the eye-witnesses. This statement is absolutely incorrect since according to Sucha Singh (PW2), his house is only at a distance of 150 metres from - 5 - the house of the complainant. The house of Kamaljit Singh is only at a distance of 1 km. The story of the prosecution some how does not inspire confidence. The statements of the eye-witnesses are contradictory to the statements of the complainant. Whereas according to the complainant Jagpal Singh had given a fist blow and the other accused had given beatings to her, she had nowhere stated that the other accused persons had caught hold of her but the eye-witnesses say that the complainant had been caught hold of by the remaining accused. While scrutinizing the prosecution evidence, one cannot be oblivious to the fact that the FIR was lodged on the next day, about 16 hours after the incident. The police post is in the village itself. There is no plausible explanation as to why the report was not immediately lodged when her husband came back. There is another aspect. According to the complainant, her husband came back late at night. This does not appear to be correct, since PW4 Darshan Kaur has in cross-examination admitted that the husband of the complainant had reached the spot of occurrence soon-after the occurrence. PW3 states that there was scuffle between the parties. Why did the scuffle take place? The version of the complainant cannot be accepted since according to her the accused party were raising the fence on - 6 - their own land. All these circumstances create a reasonable doubt in regard to the veracity of the statement of the complainant and the version of the prosecution. The learned trial Court has rightly given benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted them of the offences charged against them. The appeal is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. March 25, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. s.