IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 693 of 2001. Date of Decision: 10.3.2009. ______________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. ……..Appellant. Versus Das Ram and others ……..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? . For the appellant : Mr. J.S.Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr.Virender Singh Rathore, Advocate. Surinder Singh,J(Oral). The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents in case F.I.R. No. 84/2K dated 20.6.2000 registered under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Shahpur. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution against the respondents is that on 5.6.2000 at about 6.30 a.m. respondent-Kamla Devi entered the Verandah of the complainant and started throwing articles in the open ground. On having been asked by the complainant Moti Ram about her act and conduct she is alleged to have hurled a piece of brick which hit the left hand of the complainant, in the meantime, Sh.Dumnu Ram his elder brother also came there and started beating him with a bamboo stick which caused Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? . 2 the injuries on his right hand and also on the left leg. Thereafter Kamla Devi was followed by the remaining respondents and all of them gave further beatings to him. Consequently, he sustained number of injuries on his person. When he cried for help, he is alleged to have saved by his wife Smt. Kanta Devi and in that incident she also sustained injuries. The matter was reported to the Pradhan of the gram panchayat. PW7 Manoj Kumar son of the complainant also came in the house of Pradhan where he was also thrashed by the respondents. Thereafter the matter was reported to the police which culminating into F.I.R. Ext.PW10/B. The police investigated the case. During the course of the investigation, the site plan Ext.PW10/A was prepared and police seized ‘Danda’ Ext.P-1 and recorded the statement of the witnesses. The complainant Moti Ram and his wife Smt. Kanta Devi were got medically examined. The X-rays of the injuries was also done. The injuries on the left hand and the ankle were observed to be grievous in nature because of the fracture of 5th meter-carpal bone of the left hand and fracture on the lower end of tibia of the left leg. After completing the investigation, the case was presented in the Court for trial of the respondents under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 Finding a prima facie case against the respondents, the respondents were chargesheeted. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the present incident and alleged enmity. The respondents did not lead any evidence. At the end of the trial the respondents were acquitted on the ground that the prosecution evidence did not inspire confidence and there were material contradictions and significant infirmities in its case. Shri J.S.Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General has vehemently argued that the statement of Moti Ram coupled with the medico legal certificate which is proved by the doctor concerned, prove the case against the respondents. Therefore there are grounds to convert the acquittal into conviction. Contra, Shri Virender Rathore has supported the finding of the impugned judgment of acquittal, according to him the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court is borne out from the record and as such no interference is called for. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record. PW-3 Manoj Kumar and PW5 Sh.Moti Ram complainant both have stated that with respect to the same incident, respondents had also filed a complaint in the court 4 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In addition to it, the pendancy of the civil suit and also the some revenue proceedings inter se the parties are admitted. The accused persons are the collaterals of the complaint and it transpires from the evidence on record that they have some disputes over the undivided landed property. Initially in the F.I.R. by the complainant it was stated that when he was going to the field he noticed Kamla Devi wife of Das Ram throwing the utensils in the open ground which were kept in his Verandah by him but during the investigation the police did not find it correct and this fact was also not depicted in the site plan. Further there is a material contradiction in the statement of Kanta Devi wife of the complainant as she stated that while going to the field her husband asked for ‘Kudali’ from her and when she came out she saw that he was attacked by the accused and when she tried to intervene she was also given beatings by the respondents. However this narration is contrary to the F.I.R. and the statement of the complainant. The complainant deposed during the trial of the case that he was going to fetch ‘Kudali’ from the field and not from his wife as stated by her, then respondent Balvinder Singh gave blow on his mouth with a result his tooth was broken but this fact also did not find mention in the first information report given to the police and nor it was substantiated by the medico legal evidence. Further the doubt is created in the authenticity of the prosecution case by PW-3 Manoj Kumar the son of the complainant. He stated that on coming to know about the 5 injury having been given to his parents by the accused party, he visited the house of the Pradhan where he was also given beatings by the respondents. This version remains unsubstantiated. Significantly Pradhan admitted in his cross- examination that it was the complainant, his son and the wife Smt.Kanta Devi who had given beatings in his presence to the respondents. Therefore, in my opinion on the strength of the above evidence the learned trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the evidence led by the prosecution is contradictory and it lacks of probity. Therefore, I find nothing in the present appeal to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal by the learned trial Court, as such the appeal is dismissed. (Surinder Singh), Judge. March 10, 2009(R)