1 HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.676 of 2000 Decided on September, 30 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Bhura Ram & ors ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr.R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. AG For the Respondent: Mr. Dharamvir Sharma Advocate. R.B.Misra, Judge (Oral) The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after the leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to judgment dated 18.5.2000 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mandi, District Mandi, HP, thereby acquitting the respondents/accused for the offences under Sections 451,326,506 IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that Haria was beaten by the accused/respondents on 24.6.1994 and in that respect FIR was lodged vide Ext PW-4/A against the accused/respondents. Medical examination was conducted and the case was tried by learned Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? 2 Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mandi, District Mandi, HP. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 7 prosecution witnesses, whereas through their statements under Section 313 Cr.PC accused/respondents had denied the same. Respondents/accused have examined one defence witness. 4. PW-1 Haria Ram, the injured, most vital witness of the prosecution had deposed on oath that on 24.6.94 at about 9 PM when he was standing on the lintil of his newly constructed house and was watering the floor, at that time, three accused persons came and started abusing him. He further deposed that accused had asked him as to why he (PW-1) had filed the cases against them, on which he replied that the same were filed because of their quarrelsome behaviour. However, accused Bhura, carrying Darat in his hand, gave its blow on the head of PW-1 because of which he fell down unconscious. However, PW-1 has given contradictory version to his statement Ex PA, on the basis of which the case in question was registered. PW-1 has stated that at about 9 PM only accused Bhura Ram had come to his house and when he was asked by him about the court cases, then he went back to his house and came back with Darat along with other accused, who were having dandas and then all the accused had given him beatings, but PW-1 has no where deposed that the other two accused had given him beating with dandas. He has simply stated that Darat blow was given by accused No.1 and because of this injury, he fell down unconscious. In cross examination, PW-1 has 3 deposed that Darat had been seen by him for the first time in the Court. 5. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record also, the testimony of PW-1 has not been found reliable and in these circumstances, the prosecution case has been found doubtful. Other inconsistencies and contradictions have also been noticed specifically when PW-1 has categorically deposed in the cross examination that the house of Garib Dass, Chuhra, Sher Singh and Fagnu etc. were just adjacent to his house. Then it is very strange that no person out of these houses have come at the spot which is contrary to natural human act and conduct. 6. PW-2 Tek Chand, the other prosecution witness, has deposed that all the three accused persons went towards the new house of the complainant at a distance of 40-50 feet and on hearing the noise, he went to the spot and saw Darat Ex P-1, in the hand of accused. On bare perusal of testimony of PW-2, it appears that the other accused No.2 & 3 had not done anything to the complainant Haria. However, PW-2 has given different version regarding the place of occurrence which is contrary to the version of PW-1 itself. As per the testimony of PW- 1, occurrence had taken place in the courtyard of the house of the complainant. Such contradictions create doubt in the prosecution case. 7. In our considered view, the prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt to the accused successfully. Therefore, we find no scope for interference in the impugned 4 judgment of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate The criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. 8. The bail bonds, furnished by the accused/respondents, are discharged. ( R.B.Misra ), J. 30th September, 2010 ( V.K.Sharma ), J. (sl)