IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.255 of 2003 Date of decision : May 13, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Santosh Kumari …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Banbhushan Singh, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 31st January, 2003 of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby respondent Santosh Kumari, who was tried for offence, under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. 2. According to the prosecution, respondent went to the house of her mother-in-law Satya Devi (PW-2), on 25th July, 2000 at 5 p.m., and tried to hit her on her head with a Drati, but Satya Devi raised her hand to ward off the blow, as a result of which all her fingers were hurt and bleeding injuries were caused. Incident was witnessed by Rakesh Kumar (PW-3), a son of the injured. 3. Matter was reported to the police. Injured was got medically examined. Cut injuries were noticed on the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… palmer side of all the four fingers of left hand. On completion of investigation, respondent was challaned. 4. Learned trial Court charged the respondent with offence, under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, and put her on trial, when she pleaded not guilty. 5. Prosecution examined injured Satya Devi as PW-2, her son Rakesh Kumar as PW-3 and the doctor, who conducted medical examination, namely Dr. Ajay Sharma as PW-1. Trial Court held that the case of the prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 6. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 7. According to injured PW-2 Satya Devi, blow was aimed at her head, but she shielded it by raising her left hand. Her testimony is not corroborated by her son Rakesh Kumar (PW-3), who has stated that when he came out from the room, on hearing noise, he saw his mother, i.e. PW-2 Satya Devi, trying to snatch a Drati from the respondent and that the respondent succeeded in getting the Drati released from his mother and then she dealt a blow on her hand and ran away. Statement of this witness gives a lie to the deposition of the injured herself and probabilises the defence plea that PW-2 Satya Devi sustained the injuries, when she tried to snatch Drati from the respondent to prevent her from going to the field to fetch grass for the …3… buffalo, which she and her husband had recently purchased. It is admitted by the injured that the respondent and her husband had purchased a buffalo during those days. In view of the abovestated position, appeal is dismissed. May 13, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J