IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.676 of 2002 Date of decision : July 9, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Kishori Lal and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 27th December, 2001, of learned trial Magistrate, whereby respondents Kishori Lal, Balbir Singh and Ram Lal, all three brothers, have been acquitted of offences, punishable under Sections 325 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case was registered against the respondents, at the instance of PW-1 Madan Lal, vide FIR Ex. PW-7/A. It was reported to the police by PW-1 Madan Lal that on 21st April, 1999, respondents had pulled down a breast wall behind his house, during day time, in his absence and that in the evening, when he returned home and his wife told him about the same, he asked the mother of the respondents why the respondents had committed the aforesaid act, upon which she started hurling abuses at him. The matter ended there. Later in the evening, when Madan Lal was taking meals, with his family, he Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… heard someone hitting the wall of his kitchen from outside. He shouted as to who was striking at his kitchen and why, and thereafter went out to his courtyard and saw all the three respondents standing outside the gate, with Dandas in their hands. When he opened the gate, all the three respondents entered his courtyard and assaulted him. His wife came to his rescue. She too was assaulted. 3. Police got PW-1 Madan Lal and his wife PW-3 Nirmala Devi medically examined. Injuries found on their person were all simple, except one grievous injury, which was noticed on the person of PW-1 Madan Lal, which was fracture of carpal bone. 4. Trial Court charged the respondents with the aforesaid offences. They pleaded not guilty and were, therefore, put on trial. Prosecution examined the injured couple, as also the doctor, namely PW-2 Dr. Vineet Aggarwal, who conducted the medico legal examinations and one alleged eye-witness, namely PW-6 Vinod Kumar to prove the charge. Vinod Kumar turned hostile. Respondents denied their involvement in the commission of crime. Trial Court disbelieved the prosecution version and acquitted the respondents. 5. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the record. 6. One of the reasons given by the trial Court for disbelieving the version of the injured is that on the day they …3… appeared as witnesses, in the trial Court, they were briefed by the police outside the Court room about the statements, which they were supposed to make in the Court. PW-3 Nirmala Devi admitted in her cross-examination that the police had read out to her and her husband PW-1 Madan Lal their earlier statements, which they made to the police, and asked them to state all those facts, which were their in those statements. Though this, by itself, may not have been a good ground for acquittal, but there are some other circumstances, which would stand in the way of acceptance of the present appeal. 7. According to the injured couple, the incident had taken place in their courtyard. However, the site plan Ex. PW- 9/A shows that it had taken place on the street located between the houses of the injured and the respondents. Statement of PW-4 Kuldeep Singh also renders the prosecution version doubtful. The witness stated that when he went to the spot, on hearing commotion, he saw that there was one Danda Ex. P-1, which had been held on one end by injured Madan Lal and on the other by respondent Ram Lal and that both were trying to snatch it from each other. It is quite likely that injury, which has been opined to be grievous, was sustained by injured Madan Lal in that process. In view of the abovestated position, I do not think this to be a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. July 9, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J