IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 621 of 2001 Date of decision: November 6, 2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Balbir Singh & others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1No. For the Appellant Mr J. S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the Respondents None. Surinder Singh,J. (Oral) The present appeal has been filed by the State, challenging the judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned trial court in Cr. Case No. 19-II/2000 dated 26.6.2001 under sections 451, 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Guleria, learned Law Officer has vehemently argued that the trial court has wrongly appreciated the evidence, produced by the prosecution and the reasoning given for acquittal is manifestly unsustainable. Learned Law officer has also led me through the evidence on record and 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?yes. 2 submitted that there are grounds for converting the acquittal into conviction. No one had appeared for the respondents in this case, as such I went through the evidence on record to appreciate the submissions made by the learned Law officer. The prosecution case, alleges about two incidents; one having taken place on 5.12.1999 at 10 p.m. when respondent Balbir Singh is alleged to have entered the house of Karam Chand complainant and started kicking the door asked about him and broke the mirror; and second incident is of next morning which took place at 8 a.m. when the daughter of the complainant had gone to fetch water from the public tap nearby. She was alleged to have been dragged by the respondents, as a result of which her clothes were torn out and she was rescued by one Raj Kumar. Respondent Shanti Devi is allegedly given a tooth bite on her left hand. Complainant Karam Chand and his sister also reached the spot, who were also attacked by respondent Balbir Singh with stones, as a result of which both have suffered injuries. The matter was reported to the police and FIR Ex.PW1/A was registered. Police 3 visited the spot and prepared the site plan Ex.PW9/A and also took into possession shirt Ex.P-1 through seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. Complainant Karam Chand (PW1) and his sister Usha Devi (PW5) both were medically examined from Doctor N.S.Bedi (PW3). He noticed abrasion on the left arm of the complainant and lacerated wound on the medial side of the right ring finger. Police recorded the statement of the witnesses and after completing the investigation, presented a challan in the court for trial of the respondents. The respondents were charge-sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondents were also examined, under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the circumstances, which were found attendant upon them. According to the respondents, the complainant party had lodged a false case against them and their defence was that litigation was going on inter-se the parties and cross-cases with respect to the same incident were filed. However, no defence was led by them. 4 At the end of the trail, the learned trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on record, acquitted the respondents. In so far as the incident, with respect to the previous night is concerned, it was initially alleged in the FIR that respondent Balbir Singh had entered the house of the complainant at 10 p.m. and inquired about the complainant Karam Chand and started kicking the door of the house and broke the mirror, but during the trial of the case, PW1 Karam Chand has contradicted this version and stated that his wife had disclosed him that Balbir Singh respondent came around 1 a.m. during the intervening night of 5-6th December, 1999. However, he was not present in his house. Further with respect to another incident, which took place next morning, Dhani Devi (PW2) stated that she went to the spot to rescue Usha Devi (PW5) from the clutches of the respondents along with Raj Kumar and saw that Ajudhya Devi accused had slapped her but PW5 Usha Devi stated that respondent had kicked up her bucket only when she was at the public tap but did not say about slapping. She did not utter 5 even a single word that Shanti Devi respondent had caused any injury or given beatings to her as alleged. Dhani Devi (PW2) also did not depose that Ajudhya Devi respondent had slapped PW5 or that respondent Balbir Singh had given beatings to her. In the cross-examination PW1 Karam Chand has stated that when he returned and was taking meal around 8.15 a.m. his daughter was being beaten by the respondent at the public tap, but this fact does not find mentioned in the FIR lodged by him. In view of the aforesaid material contradictions and more particularly when they have admitted that there was a civil litigation pending interse the parties and cross-case was also lodged by the accused persons against them, the possibility of exaggeration and false implication cannot be ruled out. Thus, the prosecution evidence is not worth inspiring confidence. I have gone through the impugned judgment and also scanned the evidence on record. The conclusion, arrived at by the learned trial court is borne out from the evidence, adduced before it. The acquittal of the respondents calls 6 for no interference by this court. As such, the appeal is dismissed. November 6, 2008 (Surinder Singh ),J. (D)