IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 433 of 1997 Decided on: 7.9.2010 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Ranjit Singh. ..…Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. For the respondent : Pt. Om Parkash Sharma, Advocate. R.B. Misra, J. (Oral) The present criminal appeal has come-up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted, in reference to the impugned judgment dated 24.2.1997, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra District at Dharamshala, in Sessions Trial No. 13-G/96, acquitting the respondent-accused for the offences, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Prosecution case is that respondent-accused was married with Smt. Chanchal and Miss Priyinka was born from the said wedlock. However, respondent-accused was interested in second marriage with some other lady and on 31.1.1994 at about 4.30 P.M. when both were accompanying respondent- accused, Smt. Chanchal PW-5 was hit by stones and was injuried and respondent-accused left both of them on way. However, Smt. Chanchal informed Kedar Nath and Kishori Lal and accordingly Kedar Nath informed the police about the injured condition of Smt. Chanchal. Medical examination was conducted and investigation was made. Respondent-accused was charged for the aforesaid offence and case was committed to the Sessions Court. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses, whereas the respondent-accused through his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. 4. PW-10 Dr. K.K. Rattan was not known to Smt. Chanchal and he conducted the medical examination of Smt. Chanchal and Miss Priyinka. Similarly, PW-11 Dr. D.P. Swami had admitted that he had not examined the said Chanchal. However, medical examination does not reveal that the alleged injury on the person of victim was grievous in nature and nothing has been divulged that the injury has created permanent disfiguration. 5. PW-1 Kedar Nath in his endeavour to support the prosecution case has admitted that the said lady had not told that how the injury has been received to her. As per testimony 3 of PW-1, the name of respondent-accused was not divulged by the victim. As such, the testimony of PW-1 is not helpful to the prosecution case. 6. The statement of PW-3 Roshan Lal is also not very helpful. However, PW-5 Smt. Chanchal has stated that she received injuries on her head and face only but the doctor, who attended upon her, appearing as PW-10 has stated that he found as many as six injuries on the person of Smt. Chanchal. Doctor also found injuries on the shoulder and other parts of said Smt. Chanchal. Thus, the statement of Smt. Chanchal is not in-consonance with the medical evidence. As per testimony of PW-5 Smt. Chanchal she was given beatings with two stones. However, police recovered only one stone and PW-10 had admitted that the weight of the stone Ext.P3 was about 4 to 5 Kgs. and if, the said stone struck with heavy force, it will cause fracture. However, doctor has not found any fracture on the person of injured Smt. Chanchal. The statement of the injured PW-5 is clear that the injuries were inflicted with two stones, whereas, the police has recovered only one stone. As such, contradictions are being noticed in injuries and the manner of inflicting injuries as Smt. Chanchal had received injuries on her breast, nose and gums also, but the doctor, who attended upon her, had not found the said injuries on the person of Smt. Chanchal. 7. PW-8 Vipan Kumar has not supported the prosecution case. PW-10 Dr. K.K. Rattan has opined that all the injuries are of simple nature. None of the prosecution witnesses have seen the respondent-accused inflicting injuries to Smt. 4 Chanchal. The circumstances also not inspiring that the resonant-accused had beaten Smt. Chanchal. 8. In our considered view, on the basis of materials on record, facts and circumstances and keeping in view the medical opinion, learned Additional Judge has rightly arrived at the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. We are also of the view, prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the respondent-accused. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is, therefore, dismissed. 9. Bail bonds, furnished by the accused-respondents, are hereby discharged. (R.B. Misra), Judge. September 7, 2010 (V.K. Sharma), Judge. (vs)