IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.404 of 2002 Date of decision : March 25, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Chaman Lal and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J ( Oral ) State has appealed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Magistrate, thereby acquitting the respondents of offences, punishable under Sections 323, 325, 451 and 506, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for which they were tried. 2. Case of the prosecution is like this. On 7th July, 1999, around 10 p.m., when Ram Singh (PW-4) was present at a shop, adjoining his own shop, in village Uttrala, the three respondents went there and started hurling abuses at him and when Ram Singh asked why they were abusing him, they fisticuffed and kicked him, as a result of which he received a number of injuries, including fracture of one of the fingers. Kehar Singh (PW-5), who was at the shop of Ram Singh, tried to intervene. He too was assaulted and inflicted certain simple injuries. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. Matter was reported to the police on the next following day at 2.50 p.m. Police got the two injured medically examined. Medical examination of PW-4 Ram Singh revealed that he had fracture of left little finger. Besides the aforesaid fracture, he had two simple injuries on his person. PW-5 Kehar Singh had two injuries, both of which were simple. 4. During course of trial, prosecution examined both PW-4 Ram Singh and PW-5 Kehar Singh, as also the doctor, who conducted their medico legal examination. Learned trial Magistrate has acquitted the respondents, for the reasons that place of occurrence recorded in the earliest version, is different from the place of occurrence, testified by PW-4 Ram Singh, there is unexplained delay of about 16 hours in reporting the matter to the police and also there are contradictions in the testimony of the two injured witnesses, which make the case doubtful. 5. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General and the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the record. 6. In the earliest version, which was given to the police by PW-4 Ram Singh, vide report Ex. PW-1/A, it is clearly mentioned that the incident had taken place not at the shop of PW-4 Ram Singh but in the adjoining shop. However, while in the witness-box PW-4 Ram Singh stated that the incident had taken place at his own shop. Again, in the earliest version, it is mentioned that the incident had taken place while PW-5 Kehar Singh was taking tea at the shop of PW-4 Ram Singh, but when …3… in the witness-box Ram Singh stated that upon his raising alarm PW-5 Kehar Singh came there and tried to rescue him but he too was assaulted. PW-4 Ram Singh says that PW-5 Kehar Singh was hit with an iron rod but PW-5 Kehar Singh himself does not say that any iron rod was used nor did the doctor find any injury caused by rod on his person. Also, there is delay of more than 16 hours in lodging the report. PW-4 Ram Singh has admitted that he and PW-5 Kehar Singh often drink together. It has also been admitted by PW-4 Ram Singh that his residence is at a distance of 2-3 kms. from village Uttrala, where he has his shop. Possibility cannot be ruled out that the injuries were sustained by Pw-4 Ram Singh and PW-5 Kehar Singh, as a result of fall, while going to Ram Singh’s residence, in drunken state, especially when the doctor admits that such injuries could have been the result of fall. In view of the abovestated position, view taken by the learned trial Magistrate cannot be said to be perverse. Hence, this is not a fit case for interference with the judgment of acquittal. Appeal dismissed. March 25, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J