IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 256 of 2003 Date of decision: 13.07.2010 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Roshan Lal … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, 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 learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Joginder Nagar, dated 29.11.2002, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 324 and 506 I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 6.12.2001, at about 10.00 A.M., complainant Smt. Chandravati was taking water from a public tap near Bayuh Bus Stop. The respondent came there from his shop and asked her as to why she has not paid Rs.250/- for stitching charges. The complainant stated that she had to merely pay Rs.50/- and the respondent got enraged and hit her with scissors with sharp edged side, due to which the complainant sustained 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 injures on her eye. She cried for help and several people came there who rescued her. She lodged the report with the police at 4.30 P.M. On this report, the complainant was medically examined and after investigation, the challan was filed as against the respondent under the Sections mentioned above and the learned trial Court tried the respondent, leading to his acquittal. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the facts of the case, it is very much clear that in the rapat lodged with the police, the complainant had alleged that there was a dispute in regard to payment of the stitching charges and the respondent hit her with scissors. She raised an alarm and several persons standing nearby, namely, Ramesh Kumar, Diwan Chand and Vijay Kumar came there and rescued her. Insofar as the question of lodging of FIR or delay is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that there was any delay, since the occurrence took place in the morning at about 9.00/10.00 A.M. and she lodged the report at 4.30 P.M. The prosecution had examined several witnesses, who came to the spot, but it is clear in the report lodged by the complainant herself that she has stated that none was present and they came to the spot when she cried for help. Therefore, the possibility that other witnesses may have witnessed the occurrence, is rather ruled out from her testimony. 5. The complainant Smt. Chandravati has been examined as PW-1, who stated that the dispute arose in regard to the payment of the stitching charges since the respondent was demanding Rs.250/-. She was saying that she had to pay only Rs.50/-. In cross- 3 examination, she has admitted that when she was inflicted blow with a scissors, no witness was present at the spot, which rules out the presence of any other person having witnessed the occurrence. She admitted that at the time of occurrence, the accused was showing her the copy containing accounts or details of the payment due to her and the exchange of words took place for 6-7 minutes. She admitted that the respondent has stated that details of payment are mentioned in the note book and she demanded the note book and she told the respondent that he has not mentioned the accounts correctly. She admitted that the respondent went inside the room and when he came to verandah and showed her the note book, he was having scissors in his other hand. A suggestion was put up that she tried to snatch the note book and the scissors hit her, which was denied by her. She admitted that she suffered no other injury. She denied the suggestion that she had tried to destroy the note book after snatching it from the respondent. PW-2 Ramesh Chand was examined as a witness, who came to the spot, but he turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution story 6. PW-6 Vijay Kumar, who came to the spot on hearing her cries, has stated that the blow was inflicted by the respondent near the eye of the complainant. He admitted that the exchange of words was taking place and the respondent was giving threats to the complainant, which has not been so stated by her. At the time of occurrence, he was reading newspaper in his shop and the face of Roshan Lal was towards him, while the back of Chandravati was towards him. He saw the occurrence from a distance of 20-25 feet. He is not aware as to how many blows were inflicted, but the blood 4 was oozing out from one wound and the complainant’s case is only to this effect that one blow was given with the scissors. At that time both the complainant and accused were standing nearby. He denied the suggestion that when the complainant tried to snatch the note book, she was hit with the scissors accidentally. He denied the suggestion that the respondent was not visible at the place where he was standing. The possibility that he had not witnessed the occurrence cannot be ruled out since he was standing at a distance of 20-25 feet and was reading the newspaper at the relevant time. 7. The only other witness PW-4 Diwan Chand, who has also been examined, has stated that Roshan Lal showed the note book to the complainant and when she tried to snatch the note book, the respondent gave the blow. However, in regard to the specific question he stated that at the time of the occurrence, the complainant was trying to snatch the note book of the respondent and accidentally the scissors hit her. He has neither admitted nor denied the suggestion that he has stated that he cannot say if the blow was given intentionally or by mistake. He also admitted the suggestion that he cannot say specifically that the complainant had tried to snatch the note book and in that context, the complainant was hit with the scissors accidentally. He cannot say if the blow was given intentionally or voluntarily or accidentally. 8. PW-3 Dr. Nag Raj, has stated about the injuries and he admits that injury No. 1 is the impact of injury No. 2. There is no distance in between the two injuries. He admits the suggestion that the injury does not appear to be the result of direct hit as it is only skin-deep and has not damaged the wound. He also 5 admitted the suggestion that if man is standing with scissors in one hand and nothing in other hand and scissors is pointed towards front, this injury can be possible if a person is trying to snatch the other thing. In the opinion of the Medical Officer, in case the injury had been inflicted directly, the impact of the injury would have been more. He has not ruled out the possibility that in the process of snatching or accidentally, the scissors had hit the complainant. The admission made by PW-4 Diwan Chand was also that the injury was inflicted accidentally or un-intentionally, cannot be ruled out. 9. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that from the evidence two views can be taken and one view in favour of the accused was taken by the learned trial Court, which view cannot be termed as perverse, calling for an interference by this Court. 10. 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. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ), July 13, 2010 Judge (BSS) 6