IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.54 of 2004. Date of decision: 25.10.2010. Bajinder Chandel … …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1No. For the Petitioner: Mr.B.P. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr.Arun Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner is aggrieved by his conviction under Section 325 IPC as affirmed by the two Courts below. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.3.1999 at about 4.00 P.M., the petitioner-accused was fencing the land of the complainant in village Behna Jattan. This action was objected to by the complainant PW-1 Saroj Kumari, who objected to the encroachment. The petitioner did not heed to her protest and instead sat upon her and hit her with “Salanga” (bamboo staff). Consequent upon this assault 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement?yes. 2 she suffered fracture injury on her left arm. She was rescued by Manchali and Sarla Devi and the case was reported to the police vide Ex.PW-8/A. Her medical examination was conducted and the M.L.C. Ex.PW-5/A and Ex.PW-6/B reveal a fracture in her left elbow. Ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution and on the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 3. The petitioner appealed. It was urged before the learned appellate Court that the evidence of PW-1 Smt.Saroj Kumari, complainant, and PW-2 Smt.Sarla Devi is contradictory and destructive to the very foundation of the case of the prosecution. While considering this, the learned Court holds that there may be some contradictions in the evidence of PW-1 Smt.Saroj Kumari and PW-2 Smt.Sarla Devi, but these facts were not sufficient to have knocked the basis of the entire offence. Accordingly, the learned Court, after considering the entire evidence on the record, sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.5000/-. 4. I have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the State. 3 5. All that I need say is that on reading of the entire evidence, I do not find that the contradictions in the details of the evidence are such which would knock out the very foundation of the case of the prosecution. What is required to be considered is as to whether they have corroborated each other on material particulars. On this aspect of the case, PW-1 complainant and PW-2 Smt.Sarla Devi are in concord that the complainant sat up on the accused when he was raising a `Baar” (fencing) in the land of the complainant PW-1. The minor nitty-gritty did not render the testimony of this witness unbelievable. They support evidence of the complainant that she was struck with `Salanga, with one voice. Taking into consideration the evidence of PW-5 Dr.S.K. Patial, I do not find that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the petitioner. What I also find from the approach of the learned appellate Court is that the accused has been dealt with very leniently so far as the question of innocence is concerned. Both the Courts having concurrently found against the petitioner, I do not find that there is any perversity in the appreciation of the evidence or in the conclusions so arrived at. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed. October 25, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.