IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 117/2005 Date of decision: 09.11.2011 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Sanoop Kumar ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 no For the Appellant: Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy. Advocate General. For the respondent : None for the respondent. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) Respondent was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 506 Indian Penal Code by the learned trial Court hence the present appeal by the State. 2. I have heard Mr. Negi learned Deputy Advocate General and gone through the record. Neither the respondent nor his counsel is present despite the fact that the name of the counsel has been shown in the consolidated list. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - 3. Precisely the case of the prosecution is that on 20.11.2003 PW4 Mehar Chand complainant objected to the taking of ox by the respondent through the passage which was not a thoroughfare. The accused accosted him. In the evening while returning with the ox from a different route to his house, the complainant met him in the shop of Prakash Chand. The complainant asked him that he had brought the ox from other route. The respondent felt offended, used abusive language and caught-hold of him then started fisticuffing, resulting in internal injuries. The complainant raised hue and cry. The co-villagers gathered there and relieved the complainant. 4. The matter was reported next day to the police in terms of report Ext. PW3/A on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW3/A was formally registered. 5. The complainant was got medically examined and was also referred to x-ray of his chest. There were simple injuries on the person of the complainant but as per the opinion of the Radiologist there was a fracture of the 4th rib. 6. On completion of the investigation, police found the involvement of the respondent as such he - 3 - was chargesheeted. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. To prove its case, prosecution heavily relied upon the statement of the complainant, PW4 Mehar Chand and PW5 Premi Devi alleged eye witnesses. 8. Respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the circumstances which were found attendant upon him. To probablize the defence, he also examined one DW Shri Praveen Kumar who was originally cited as an eye witness by the prosecution, though given up. 9. The stand which was taken by the respondent was that the complainant was drunk and caught-hold of the respondent and in that event, he fell down. He had not given any beatings to him. 10. On the strength of the aforesaid evidence, respondent was acquitted on the ground of delay and also the contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and further for not examining the material witnesses. The name of Premi Devi did not find mentioned in the eye witnesses in - 4 - the original complaint with the complainant and her testimony was held doubtful. 11. The evidence on record shows that the complainant had complained of the injuries on his person but on his examination no external injury was detected on his person except some tenderness on the left side as indicated in MLC Ext. PW2/A bearing No. 198/2003. He was referred for x-ray of his chest and as per report Ext. PW1/B there was a fracture of the 4th rib of the left side, but the x-ray were exhibited as Ext. PW1/B which is not connected with the injury in question at all for more than one reason as the x-ray form Ext. PW1/A mentions MLC No. 198/2003 dated 21.11.2003 but x-ray Ext. PW1/B does not show the name of Mehar Singh and MLC number 273/2003 dated 24.11.2003. 12. The another x-ray Ext. PW1/C was taken on 25.11.2003 whereas the report is dated 24.11.2003 which means that x-ray Ext. PW1/C was not taken into consideration at all. It is not known as to what was the material before the doctor PW2 Dr. Sunil Dutt to come to the conclusion that there was fracture of 4th rib of the left side of the complainant. 13. Further, the initial report Ext. PW3/A lodged by the complainant mentions the name of - 5 - Karam Chand and Munna Lal @ Praveen Kumar eye witnesses who intervened and relieved the complainant but none of them were examined. Munna Lal was given up as having won over. To corroborate the version of the complainant, Premi Devi was examined but her name did not find mentioned in the said report which is earliest version. Muna Lal @ Praveen was examined as a defence witness. He probablized the defence by testifying that the complainant was drunk and tried to man- handle the respondent and in that process, he fell down. He also stated that about 20-25 persons had gathered on the spot but only the interested witnesses appear to have been examined. Even DW1 Praveen Kumar aforesaid in his cross- examination denied about her presence on the spot. He further stated that had the complainant been examined medically on the same day, the fact of his consumption of liquor would have been detected. 14. On the re-appraisal of the evidence I find that the witnesses of the parties are equi-balanced and the inference drawn by the learned trial Court against the prosecution on the given set of circumstances is plausible which requires no - 6 - interference, also on the ground as mentioned above. The appeal sans merits and is accordingly dismissed. 15. On the basis of the legal and factual analysis, the respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him, at any time during the proceedings of this case. November 9, 2011 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge.