1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 359 of 1993. Date of Decision: 4-1-2008. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Sabi Ram and another. ……..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No For the appellant : Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, Additional Advocate General with Mr. D. S. Nainta, Deputy Advocate General. For respondents : Mr. M. Kaushal, Advocate vice Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate. ______________________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J. (oral) Heard and gone through the record. Respondent Sabi Ram and his son Chet Ram were tried for offences, punishable under Section 323 and 325, I.P.C., on the allegations that they had voluntarily caused hurts and grievous hurts to Moti Ram (PW5) and his wife Balu Devi (PW6) by means of a Basola and a Kudali. The matter was tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. During the course of the trial, Moti Ram (PW5) and Balu Devi (PW6) changed their version as to the weapons that were used for inflicting the injuries. They stated that the injuries had been caused by means of a cycle chain. The Doctor, namely V.K. Bhardwaj (PW8), however, gave the opinion that the injuries could have been caused by means of a Basola (from the back side). Because of this contradiction in the earliest version and the testimonies of the witnesses in this count, trial Court acquitted the respondents. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 We have perused the record and heard the learned Additional Advocate General. We have been taken through the First Information Report that was lodged by Moti Ram (PW5). In the FIR it is mentioned that the injuries were caused by means of a Basola and a Kudali but when in the witness box, both the injured, namely, Moti Ram (PW5) and his wife Balu Devi (PW6) as also Tara Chand (PW4), son of Moti Ram, testified that the injuries were caused by means of a cycle chain. No explanation was offered by the prosecution to reconcile the variation in the earliest version and the testimonies of the witnesses. Moreover, Dr. V.K. Bhardwaj (PW8) did not corroborate the evidence in the Court with regard to the object/weapon by which the injuries could have been caused. He stated that the injuries could have been caused by a Basola. He did not say that these could have been caused by a cycle Chain. In view of the above said position, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Magistrate. Hence the appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh) Judge. (Surinder Singh). Judge. January 4, 2008. (bm)