IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 205 of 2003. Date of Decision: 3rd May, 2010. ______________________________________________________ _ State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus Meena Devi and others …..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents : Nemo. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) 1. State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents passed by the learned trial Court in Case No.17-II of 2001, decided on 11th February, 2003 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 325, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 5th July, 2000, complainant Sukri Devi and her daughter Usha Devi had gone to the fields in village Rajot. On return when they reached near the house of one Lachho Ram, respondents picked up the dispute with Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - respect to money transaction. Immediately thereafter they fisticuffed the complainant and her daughter and gave beatings with ‘Danda’ causing injuries to them. They reported the matter to police and injured were got medically examined. The police presented challan in the court, but at the end of trial, they were acquitted. 3. Heard and gone through the record. 4. On reappraising the evidence on record, I find material contradictions in the statements of complainant and her daughter Usha Devi. According to complainant, she was given beating by Inder Raj with ‘Danda’ and that on the spot 7/8 persons had assembled. She only named Narkash and Gindo as eye witnesses. Narkash was not examined. Gindo did not support the prosecution case. Her daughter PW-4 Usha Devi stated that it was Meena Devi respondent who started hurling abuses to them when they demanded back the loan-amount paid to her. She did not state that Inder Raj had given beatings with ‘Danda’ blows to her and her mother. She stated that besides Narkash and Gindo (PW-5), Ashwani Kumar (not examined) and PW-6 Tilak Raj both were present. The occurrence was allegedly witnessed by about 10 persons and further that ‘Danda’ was taken into possession from the spot by - 3 - the police as they had thrown the same on the spot while fleeing. 5. It is pertinent to note that PW-6 Tilak Raj when examined in the Court, did not state that the ‘Danda’ was taken into possession in his presence and did not say anything about the occurrence. He also turned hostile to the prosecution. 6. Doctors PWs-2 and 3 admitted that the injuries in question to the complainant and her daughter Usha Devi could be caused on account of fall. 7. The complainant did not mention anything about the demand of loan-amount from the respondents in the FIR made by her to the police. In view of the contradictions aforesaid and also the fact that the independent witnesses were either not examined or did not support the prosecution case. The case against the respondents could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse, as it is borne out from the evidence on record, as such, no interference is required in the instant appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed. - 4 - 8. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of this case. 9. Send down the record. May 3, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)