IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 509 of 2002 Date of decision: 19.05.2008 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Subhash Chand alias Veenu & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondents: Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class(1), Dharamhala, dated 16.3.2002, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 451, 324,323, 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 14.8.2001, at about 4.15 PM, a report was lodged with the police by Umardin that on the previous night at about 11.00 PM, he was sleeping in his room, while his wife was sleeping in the other room. Some persons knocked at the door and she asked him to see as to who was there. He came near the 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 door, switched on light and saw that son of Dev Raj and his maternal uncle Shiv Kumar were present there outside the room. When he saw from the hole they pointed out a Danda towards his chest which hit him on the left side and they tried to open the door which was not opened by him. He suffered injuries on his chest and raised an alarm, the villagers came there and the accused persons ran away from the spot. This report was lodged on 14.8.2001. On this report, a FIR was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court who tried the respondents as detailed above leading to their acquittal. Heard and have gone through the record. The first point to be considered is that the report was lodged with the police on 14.8.2001 by the complainant and the medical examination of the complainant was also conducted on 14.8.2001 itself, but surprisingly, the FIR was registered on 22.8.2001, for which no explanation is forthcoming from the Investigating Officer. In the report the complainant had specifically alleged that only two persons were present there and not stated that the third appellant was also present, nor there was mention of the person who came on the spot including Jagrup examined as eye witness during the trial of the case. Coming to the statement of PW-2 Umardin, in his statement he had stated that all the accused persons were standing there, though he had named only two persons in his rapat lodged by him. He stated that he had opened the door partly and saw the accused persons there who attacked on him. In his report, he had no where stated that he had opened the door and then the accused persons attacked him, whereas 3 contrary version was given that blow with Danda was given to him and injuries were inflicted on his chest from the hole in the door. He stated now that on hearing noise, Jagrup Singh came there and accused persons ran away. The son of the complainant has been examined as PW-6 Beerdin, who has stated that his father opened the door, saw the accused persons who gave beatings to his father with a sharpedged weapon in the hand of the accused persons, which was never so stated by the complainant. He also stated that on hearing the noise, Jagrup Singh came there. He admitted that there were five persons present at that time in their house. He admitted that a case of beating was registered against them for having given beatings to the parents of Subhash Chand, which fact was denied by PW-2 Umardin, complainant. He admitted that in that case appellants Shiv Kumar and Gian Chand are the witnesses. The wife of the complainant was also examined as PW-5 Hasni Bibi who has stated that her husband opened the door and found all the three accused persons standing there who gave beatings to her husband. She raised an alarm and Jagrup Singh came there. She stated that house of Jagrup Singh is adjoining to their house, but the said PW-4 Jagrup Singh had admitted that his house at a distance of 50 Mtr. from the house of the complainant. She also admitted that there were seven person present at that time and it looks surprising that the villagers had gathered there but no attempts were made to apprehend the accused persons at that time. She has clearly stated that she had not seen the occurrence since she was in the other room, which fact has been clearly appreciated by the learned trial Court in its judgment. The only eye 4 witness Jagrup Singh was examined as PW-4 but he turned hostile and stated that he came to the spot only on the next morning and had not seen any quarrel taking place or the accused persons runnings from the spot. The learned trial Court had referred to these contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution case and had come to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused persons was not established beyond any reasonable doubt. Keeping in view the above discussion, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse calling for an interference by this Court and as such, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds stand discharged forthwith. ( V.K. Ahuja ) May 19, 2008 Judge (BSS) 5