1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 135 of 2001. Date of Decision: 2. 12.2008. ____________________________________________________________ Ravi Singh. Petitioner. Versus Sada Ram and others. Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Mr. Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer for Respondent No.5. None for respondents No.1 to 4. Surinder Singh, J (oral) The State case of the prosecution under Section 325, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ended in acquittal before the learned trial Court which has been assailed by the complainant in this criminal revision petition on ground that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in the right manner. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. Precisely, the case of the prosecution against the respondents has been that on 21.10.1996 around 4.00 P.M, complainant Ravi Singh, petitioner herein, was on his way to his fields in village Ladhera. On the way, he met Sagari Devi who was coming from the opposite side with a bundle of grass. He had a tiff with her. Thereafter, the respondent Kishori Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?Yes. 2 Lal caught hold of him and gave beatings. While returning to his home, the complainant was also given beatings by other respondents namely, Sada Nand, Manoj and Kishori Lal and to Kamlesh, Pushpa and Usha the grand-daughter of the complainant. The matter was reported to the police around 6.00 P.M. Ravi Singh and Pushpa were got medically examined. They were found to have sustained simple injuries. However, Kamlesh had sustained fracture of shaft of proximal phalanyx index finger of left hand as indicated in her medico legal certificate Exhibit PW9/A. The police took into possession the X-rays and the medico legal certificates and prepared the site plan Exhibit PW10/A with respect to the place of incident. The challan was presented in the Court for the trial of respondents. The respondents were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and at the end of the trial, they were acquitted. The State did not assail their acquittal whereas the complainant has filed this revision petition. PW1 Ravi Singh has stated that he came across Sagari Devi while going through the fields and Sagari Devi who was having a load of grass shouted that he had snatched the grass. On this, her brother Kishore, son Manoj and Ajay came to him and gave kicks and fist blows. When he relieved herself from their clutches and ran towards his house, the respondents followed him and gave beatings to him in his house and also to the other members of the family. He admitted in the cross-examination about an old litigation with the father of the accused Sada Ram. He further stated that many people had gathered on the spot. According to him, he stated to the Police that the incident had taken place in the compound of his house but this fact was not found mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. PW2 Kamlesh has stated that in the said incident, her arm got fractured whereas the medico legal certificate only shows the fracture of her index finger. She has admitted in the cross-examination that she did not see her father being given beatings by the respondents in the fields. PW3 Pushpa Devi 3 altogether changed the place of occurrence. According to her, when they were busy in the maize field besides the compound of their house, her father came there and complained that the respondents had given beatings to her which fact is contrary to the statement of PW1 and PW2 aforesaid. Further, she has stated that they were relieved by Purshotam and PW6 Roshni. Roshni Devi did not support her version. She was declared hostile. She admitted that earlier there was some exchange of hot words between the parties followed by a scuffle. She did not say as to who was the aggressor. Further, PW3 has categorically stated that none of them had given beatings to Sagari Devi and Manoj respondent whereas Sagari Devi had sustained injuries and remained hospitalized. PW4 Usha Devi did not say about the occurrence alleged to have taken place in the compound. According to her, the beatings were given by the respondents in their fields and further stated that they were relieved by Purshotam and Ashwani but none of them were examined to lend strength to her version. It is pertinent to note that PW10 Shri Raghunath Singh Station House Officer who had investigated the case stated that with respect to the same incident and on the same day, a complaint with respect to the beatings was also lodged by accused Manoj Kumar son of Sada Nand respondent which was recorded in Rapat No.19 and copy whereof is Exhibit DA. He also admitted that the medico legal certificates of respondent Manoj Kumar and Sagari Devi Ext. DB and DC respectively were obtained. He further admitted that Sagari Devi remained hospitalized for ten days for the treatment of injuries but he had not investigated that case. PW11 Dr. P.S. Dogra has substantiated the facts of sustaining the injuries by the respondent Manoj Kumar and he had sustained three injuries. All were simple in nature as proved by his MLC Exhibit DB. Sagari Devi his mother was also examined by him on 21.10.1996 at about 7.00 P.M. The injuries on her person were caused with blunt weapon within three hours of her examination. He proved her MLC Ext. DC and 4 the discharge slip Mark-D1 and according to him, the injuries on their person could not be caused due to the fall. On culling the evidence aforesaid, the complainant as well as the Investigating Officer kept the real cause of the incident hidden and I am constrained to hold that the case was not fairly investigated. The chinks in the prosecution case were not explained. There is nothing on record to show as to which of the party was aggressor. There is contradictory evidence with respect of the place of occurrence. The previous enmity inter-se the parties coupled with the fact about non-explanation of the injuries are the factors which raises a grave doubt on the probity of the prosecution case. The petitioner has failed to pin-point the error of law committed by the trial Court in acquitting the respondents. For the foregoing reasons, in my considered opinion, the judgment of acquittal calls for no interference. As such the revision petition is dismissed. (Surinder Singh) Judge. December 2, 2008. (bm)