1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 487 of 2001. Date of decision: 18-7-2008. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant. -versus- Dev Raj. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr.J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondent: : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J. (oral) The State has assailed the judgment of acquittal passed in Criminal Case No. 162/2 of 1999 decided on 19-4- 2001 whereby the respondent was acquitted for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian penal Code. In short, the prosecution case is that on 3.7.1999, PW1 Paramjit Kaur had gone to the house of Kanta Devi wife of Jagdish to extract the thorn from her foot. During this process when she was engaged in conversation with Kanta Devi near the flour mill of the accused, the respondent came there and started abusing her and gave her a slap. She reported the matter to the police by moving an application Ex.P1 on the basis of which FIR Ex.P3 was formally registered. Smt.Paramjit Kaur was medically examined by Dr.C.L.Bhardwaaj (PW4) but Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 he did not find any visible injury on her face. However, he referred her for a specialized opinion of E&T Department of I.G.M.C. Hospital, Shimla. On examination by the expert, perforation of her ear drum was found and in the opinion of specialist Doctor it was a grievous injury. Police visited the spot, prepared the site plan, collected the medical opinion in the medical certificate and after recording the statements of the witnesses, presented the challan in the court for trial of the respondent for the aforesaid section and at the end of the trial, the accused was acquitted on the ground that there was a delay in lodging the FIR, the specialist who opined the injury in the ear-drum of the right ear of the injured was not examined. The alleged eye witness Dharampal turned hostile to the prosecution. PW Devinder Singh son of the injured had a motive to implicate the accused and otherwise also, there were contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. Shri J.S.Guleria,learned Law Officer for the State has vehementally argued that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence on record properly and decided the matter in a slip shod and perfunctory manner. He further urged that if the statement of Paramjit Kaur is properly seen vis-avis the opinion of the Doctor, the offence charged against the respondent is made out. Contra, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the findings arrived at by the learned trial Magistrate. 3 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record. As a matter of fact, the perusal of the evidence on record shows lot of contradictions in the F.I.R. and the statement of the complainant as well as her witnesses. It is mentioned in the FIR that when she was present along with Kanta Devi near the flour mill of the accused, the accused met them there and gave her one slap whereas as PW1 she has stated that the respondent came into the house of Kanta Devi where she was sitting and gave her two-three slaps on the right side of her face, on the ear. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 3.7.1999 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 7.7.1999 by moving the application Ex.P-1. She did not explain four days delay in approaching the police while reporting the matter whereas she has stated on oath that she had gone to the Panchayat but the respondent did not come there and thereafter there was two days holiday. Thereafter she moved the application Ex.P-1. As per the statement of PW4 Dr.C.L.Bhardwaj, on her examination, he did not find any injury on her person. However, he had referred her for further check- up by E&T Specialist, who opined some perforation of the right ear drum of the complainant. The specialist who had opined the injury in the ear drum of the complainant as grievous has not been examined for no valid reason nor the said report could connect the alleged slap given by the respondent with the injury. PW2 Dharampal an alleged eye witness has not 4 supported her version. According to her son Devinder Singh (PW3), the respondent was arguing with her mother when he along with Tarlochan reached the spot, the respondent gave her one/two slaps which was not the case of the complainant. In cross-examination, he has stated that he was working as a clerk with the respondent for issuing receipts of the Bajri and there was a dispute over the accounts for realizing the royalty of Bajri and in lieu thereof, the respondent had kept his watch with him. Therefore, this witness has a motive to speak against the respondent and his statement cannot be blindly relied upon. This apart, Kanta Devi appeared to be an important and un-interested witness in the facts and circumstances of the case but she was neither cited as a witness for the reasons best known to the police or the complainant. Thus, there are material contradictions, omissions, improvements and also embellishments in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, in my opinion for the reasons aforesaid the findings of acquittal are born out from the record, as such called for no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him during the proceedings of this case. (Surinder Singh), Judge. July 18,2008. (bm) 5