IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.Appeal 605 of 2001 Decided on 4.09.2008 State of H P Appellant Versus Madan Lal & others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh.J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 .No. For the appellant : Mr. J.S.Guleria, Law Officer. For the Respondent Mr. Malya Kaushal, Advocate, vice Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (oral) Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 2. As a matter of fact, the State has assailed the judgment of acquittal passed in Criminal Case No.160 / 2 of 1998 dated 6.12.2000 by the learned trial court, under sections 325, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that Smt. Chimma Devi lodged a complaint against the respondents, in the Police Station Barotiwala, alleging therein that on 27.2.1998 at about 3.30 p.m. when she was washing her clothes on a village tap, outside her house, and was talking to Banti Devi (PW2), in the meantime respondent Madan Lal came there and abused her, on raising objection he became angry and gave beating to her with Chappal and also twisted her finger, in that scuffle she 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 lost her ear ring on the spot. Simultaneously, Sh.Dev Raj and Smt. Paro, parents of respondent Madan Lal, also came there and they also started beating her but due to the intervention of Suresh Kumar (PW3) she was rescued. The complainant was medically examined on 1.3.1998 and her palm of right hand was also x-rayed. The Doctor (PW6) opined fracture of thumb and issued the medico-legal-certificate. 4. After recording of the statements of the parties, a challan was presented in the court for trial, against the respondents, under sections 325, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents were charge-sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined its witnesses to prove its case. The respondents were also examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Defence of the respondents was of denial simplicitor. According to them, it was a false case and further explained that there are two factions in the village, one was supporting Khushi Ram and other Bhagat Ram. Respondents were the supporters of Khushi Ram whereas the complainant party was supporter of Bhagat Ram. However, respondents did not lead any evidence. 6. At the end of the trial, the respondents were acquitted of the offences charged, on the basis of material contradictions, occurring in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. The acquittal has been assailed in this appeal by the State on the ground that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence in its right perspective and has set unrealistic standards to evaluate the direct and cogent evidence of the prosecution. 7. Shri Guleria, learned Law Officer has forcefully argued that statement of the injured, supported by the eye witnesses, inspires 3 confidence and could have been acted upon. On the other hand, Mr. Kaushal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully scanned the evidence on record. 9. As a matter of fact in the FIR (Ex.PW7/B) the complainant has given altogether different story. According to her, at the relevant time, she was washing the clothes at the village tap outside her house and was engaged in talks with one Banti Devi who was also washing the clothes there. In the meantime, respondent Madan Lal came there and started abusing and threatened her with dire consequences, also gave beatings to her with a chappal and twisted her fingers whereas, as PW1 she has given different version that at the relevant time she was going to provide fodder to the cattle and Banti Devi was washing the clothes at the village tap and made a call for her, in the meantime Madan Lal respondent came there and started saying that they should not talk about his home affairs. He started abusing. Thus she materially improved her version by saying that respondent Madan Lal throw her on the ground and then started beating her with chappal and twisted her finger. Her injury was on her thumb not on finger, according to the Doctor it was 3-5 days old, which does not match the time of incident alleged. 10. Banti Devi was also examined as PW4 to corroborate the version of the complainant but she did not say anything about giving beatings to her by respondent Madan Lal or other respondents, but according to her there were exchange of hot words only. Thus, she was declared hostile by the prosecution and even in her cross-examination 4 nothing material could be extracted. She also stated that PW Chottu Ram was lying in his compound and did not come to the spot, whereas PW2 Chottu Ram is alleged to have seen the occurrence. His presence has not been shown on the spot by the complainant in the FIR. The Investigating Officer has dislodged the story of giving beatings by Chappal and there were no other injuries on the person of the complainant. 11. There appears to be yet another glaring contradiction, in the site plan Ex.PW7/C. At point ‘A’ the complainant has shown while filling her bucket from the water tap, which fact is contrary to the prosecution case. At various stages, various stories have been introduced which lacks probity in the prosecution case. Further Suresh Kumar (PW3) stated that at the time of lodging of the FIR he along with Chottu Ram had accompanied the complainant but this fact has not been deposed by the complainant nor Chottu Ram says about the presence of Suresh. 12. The story of missing ear ring ended in limbo. Complainant did not support this version. 13. It is in evidence that complainant and the respondents admittedly belonged to different factions and in view of the material contradictions, stated above, in my opinion the findings of the learned trial court, based for acquittal of the respondents, are borne out from the record and there appear no perversity for causing any interference by this court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The respondents are discharged of the bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage of the proceedings. September 4, 2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (D)