IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.716 of 2000 Reserved on:14.03.2008. Decided on: March 17, 2008. State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Piar Chand ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant: Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl. A.G. For the respondent: Mr Ashok Chaudhary, vice counsel. Kuldip Singh, Judge This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 21.8.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Dehra, District Kangra, in Criminal case No.RBT:24-II/99/93 acquitting the respondent under Sections 325, 323 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 3.1.1993 at about 7 p.m. respondent Piar Chand and his wife Rano Devi were removing ‘Baar’ of PW-2 Surinder Kumar – complainant. PW-3 Premi Devi, mother of the complainant, questioned the respondent, he came with Drat and caused injury on the left forearm of Premi Devi. The complainant tried to rescue his mother Premi Devi then respondent Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… caused injury to complainant also. The complainant raised alarm and, therefore, many villagers came to the spot and rescued the complainant and his mother from the clutches of the respondent. The complainant visited Police Station, Jawalamukhi and Rapat No.21 was accordingly recorded at 9.30 p.m. On the basis of Rapat F.I.R. No.2/93 was registered under Sections 323, 325 IPC. The matter was investigated by PW-6 Niranjan Singh, Sub Inspector. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against respondent under Sections 323, 325 IPC. The respondent was charged under Sections 323, 325 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined six witnesses. The statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he did not lead any evidence in defence. The learned Judicial Magistrate after giving benefit of doubt acquitted the respondent, hence, this appeal. 3. I have heard Mr.A.K.Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, Mr Ashok Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and gone through the record. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondent inasmuch as complainant and injured Premi Devi have supported the prosecution story. The injuries on the person of complainant and PW-2 Premi Devi have been proved by the doctor. The respondent due to strained relations attacked complainant and Premi Devi. The learned Judicial Magistrate has mis-appreciated the material on record and …3… has erred in acquitting the respondent. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that after appreciation of the material on record, the learned trial Magistrate has rightly acquitted the respondent. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the respondent and the judgment of acquittal does not require any interference. 4. PW-1 Dr.K.K.Rattan has stated that he examined Premi Devi on 3.1.1993 and after examination of Premi Devi he issued MLC Ext.PW-1/A. Similarly, after examination of Surinder Kumar on 3.1.1993 he issued MLC Ext.PW-1/B of Surinder Kumar. Premi Devi was examined on 3.1.1993 at 10 p.m. and in her MLC Ext.PW-1/A probable duration of injuries has been given 1-2 days by the doctor. Surinder Kumar was also examined on 3.1.1993 at 10 p.m. and probable duration of injuries in MLC Ext.PW-1/B has been given 24 hours. The doctor has not ruled out the possibility of injuries mentioned in the MLCs by fall on hard surface. 5. PW-2 Surinder Kumar has stated that respondent was removing ‘Baar’ at about 7 p.m. on 3.1.1993 from the courtyard. PW- 3 Premi Devi questioned him, at this respondent caused hurt on her left forearm with Drat. According to PW-2, he tried to rescue PW-3 but the respondent caused injuries to him also with the front side of Drat Ext.P-1. He raised alarm and his brother Joginder Singh came on the spot who rescued him as well as Premi Devi from the clutches of the respondent. He has further stated that whole of the occurrence …4… was witnessed by Joginder Singh. The weapon of offence Ext.P-1 was recovered vide Ext.PW-4/A, blood stained shirt of Premi Devi was recovered vide memo Ext.PW-2/A. The Rapat No.21 Ext.PA was recorded by PW-2 Surinder Kumar. Surinder Kumar in the Rapat has stated that he does not know whether he was attacked from the front or reverse side of the Drat. In the Rapat he has nowhere stated that Joginder Singh came on the spot and rescued him as well as Premi Devi from the clutches of the respondent. PW-2 has admitted that criminal and civil litigation is pending between respondent and his other brothers. He has also admitted that one of his brother, namely, Ramesh Chand is mad but he has denied the suggestion that injuries were caused to PW-3 by Ramesh Chand during the fits of madness. PW-2 has also admitted that there are 5-6 houses at the place of occurrence. PW-3 Premi Devi has stated that respondent is her elder son and is residing separately. The respondent was removing ‘Baar’ on the relevant date, she asked him not to do so, on this respondent had gone inside his house and came out with Drat Ext.P-1 and caused hurt on her left forearm and she became unconscious but PW-2 has not stated so. PW-3 has admitted of filing of cases by her against the respondent. She has admitted that she had not handed over any blood stained clothes to police. She was not in a position to point out which part of the Drat Ext.P-1 had caused injury to her. PW- 3 has admitted that her son Ramesh Chand is mad but she has denied the suggestion that injuries to her were caused by Ramesh …5… Chand during the fits of madness. She has stated that Joginder Singh was taking his meals inside the house. 6. PW-4 Gian Chand is a witness of recovery of Drat Ext.P- 1. This witness has admitted that Ramesh Chand, son of PW-3, is mad and he used to give beatings to persons whosoever comes in his way during the fits of madness. PW-6 Niranjan Singh is the Investigating Officer. It is the case of the prosecution that PW-2 Surinder Kumar and PW-3 Premi Devi were attacked at the same time. However, in MLC Ext.PW-1/A probable duration of injuries has been given 1-2 days and in MLC Ext.PW-1/B probable duration of injuries has been given 24 hours, even though both the injured were examined at 10 p.m. on 3.1.1993. The probable duration of injuries in MLCs Ext.PW-1/A and Ext.PW-1/B creates doubt. The prosecution has not examined Joginder Singh, alleged eye-witness nor any independent witness from the adjoining area, who has seen the occurrence, has been examined though it has come in evidence that 5-6 houses are adjacent to the place of occurrence. The learned trial Magistrate has properly appreciated the material on record. The inference drawn by the learned Magistrate from the material on record cannot be said to be wrong. No case for interference has been made out. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondent, are discharged. March 17, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)