IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 450 of 2002 Date of decision: 24.04.2009 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Tilak Raj & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. B.C. Verma vice Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.2, Palampur, dated 9.5.2001, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 323, 324, 325 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The prosecution story in brief is that on 21.1.1998 at 2.40 P.M., a report was lodged with the police by one Ravinder Kumar, in which he alleged that at about 11.30 A.M., the complainant was present alongwith his brother Pramod Singh and respondents Tilak Raj, Shashi Pal and Nasib Singh plying tractor came there and 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 started giving beatings to him with Danda and Belcha. His brother Pramod Singh came there and they also attempted to give him beatings and Pradhan of Panchayat Skoh came there and rescued them. He further alleged that thereafter when they were going back, all these persons started giving beatings to him and he suffered injuries on his head and other parts of the body. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondents, leading to their acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. On appraisal of the statement of the complainant who has been examined as PW-1 Ravinder Kumar, it is clear that he had named only three persons of having giving beatings to him and he had not alleged the names of other two respondents. He only mentioned that he was rescued by Pradhan of Panchayat and there was no other person having witnessed the occurrence or having rescued them. It was required of the learned defence counsel to have confronted the complainant with FIR Ext. PW11/C, if he wanted to take the benefit of the same, which has not been done. However, a reference had to be made to this fact which did not find mention about the presence of two of the accused or witnesses who were subsequently examined. PW-1 Ravinder Kumar came up with the plea that when he was plying the tractor, he demanded a pass and he was given abuses but had not named the persons who gave him abuses. He further stated that thereafter other party came with their brothers 3 and two labourers and he was given beatings with Belcha, pipe and hockey as well as Danda. He was rescued by the Pradhan of Panchayat and thereafter, his brother came and took him towards the house and he lodged the report. There was no mention of any evidence to give beatings to his brother and it is clear that he had come up with different version, then what was alleged in the FIR lodged by him. PW-2 Pramod Chand, brother of the complainant, has stated that he went to the spot and found Pradhan, his brother and respondents present there and his brother was stained with blood and was having injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Thereafter, he brought his brother to his house and the respondents gave beatings. He stated that he was also given beatings with Belcha, hockey and danda etc. and he was stained with blood but there was no mention of this in the statement of PW-1 Ravinder Kumar that any beating was given to his brother with these weapons and he was also stained with blood at that time. He further stated that he raised an alarm and one Kultar Chand came there and rescued them. In his statement PW-1 has no where stated that wife of PW-2 Pramod Chand was present there, raised an alarm and Kultar Chand came there and rescued them. In cross- examination, he stated that in his presence no occurrence took place and when beatings were given to Ravinder Kumar he was not present there, meaning thereby that he had not witnessed the occurrence, though in the report lodged with the police, his presence was also mentioned. 4 PW-3 Dhari Ram is the Pradhan, who allegedly rescued the complainant at that time as stated by the complainant also as PW-1. He has stated that he was a witness to the recovery memo Ext. PW1/A vide which the clothes were taken into possession apart from danda etc. vide recovery memo Ext. PW1/B. He nowhere stated that he came to the spot and rescued the complainant, He stated that he voluntarily went to the spot, but in his presence no quarrel had taken place. PW-4 Suresh Kumar who has not been named by PW-1 Ravinder Kumar of having witnessed the occurrence was examined as eye witness. But when examined, he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. The said PW Kultar Chand who has been named by PW-2 having rescued him has been examined as PW-6, who has stated that Pramod’s wife came running and crying and he went to the spot after sometime where the occurrence had taken place and he found Pramod and Ravinder stained with blood and the quarrel had already taken place. He nowhere stated that he reached the sport on hearing the cries of the wife of PW-2 Pramod Chand or rescued the complainant or his brother. On perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that both the main witnesses complainant PW-1 Ravinder Kumar and PW-2 Pramod Chand have given different versions of the occurrence in their statements about the persons who were present there or had rescued them. PW-1 Ravinder Kumar has also stated differently that what was alleged in the first report Ext. PW11/C lodged by him. Thus, it is clear that the statements of two witnesses/injured do not 5 corroborate the testimony of one and another and there is no corroboration to their testimonies from the three eye witnesses examined by the prosecution as eye witnesses. The defence pea taken is that the complainant had suffered injuries in an accident and the possibility that these injuries are possible in an accident has not been ruled out by PW-5 Dr. S.K. Sood, who stated that these can be caused in an accident of tractor while driving. It is in the statements of complainant PW-1 Ravinder Kumar as well as PW-4 Suresh Kumar that the relations in between the parties are strained and possibility of false implication therefore cannot be ruled out. From the above discussion, it follows that the final findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged forthwith. April 24, 2009 ( V.K. Ahuja ), (BSS) Judge