IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 116 of 2003. Date of decision: 13.8.2009 __________________________________________________ State of H.P. …….Appellant Vs. Ram Lal & Ors .... Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate Kuldip Singh, Judge(Oral) The State has come in appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 19.12.2002 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.(ii), Amb in Case No.11-1-02/21-II/2002. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW-1 Tarsem Chand complainant on 14.10.2001 reported at Police Station, Gagret vide rapat Ex.PA that at about 3 P.M. on 14.10.2001 when respondent No.1 was taking water to his field through kuhal, the complainant resisted the taking of kuhal through the field of complainant. The respondents No.2 and 3 were also on the spot. On the objection raised by complainant the respondent No.1 gave spade (Kassi) blow on the head of the complainant which started bleeding. The respondent No.3 was carrying Dandal (a type of sickle) and gave its blow on the head of the complainant. The respondent No.2 gave beatings to the complainant Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 with kick and fist blows. The complainant raised alarm and on hearing this, PW-2 Lalita and one Puran Chand appeared on the spot who saved the complainant from the clutches of the respondents. The respondents left the place but while leaving the spot threatened the complainant that they would finish him. 3. After lodging the complaint, the complainant was got medically examined vide MLC Ex.PF. On receiving the medical opinion rapat Ex.PW-7/A was drawn and thereafter FIR Ex.PW-6/A was registered. During investigation site plan Ex.PW-8/A was prepared, recoveries were made. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. The respondents were charged for offence punishable under Sections 324, 323, 506 and Section 34 IPC. The respondents did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses and placed on record some documents. The statements of respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. , they denied the case of the prosecution. The respondents led evidence in defence and examined two witnesses. On completion of the trial, the respondents were acquitted, hence State has come in appeal. 4. Heard and perused the record. Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that the Court below has misconstrued and mis-interpreted the evidence on record and has erred in acquitting the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. 5. Ex.PA is the first version of complainant when he reported the matter to the police vide rapat No.14 dated 14.10.2001. In Ex.PA, it has been stated that Ram Lal, Sandhya Devi and Som Nath were 3 present on the spot and the moment complainant questioned Ram Lal regarding watering the kuhal through his field, Ram Lal gave spade blow on his head on the left side and blood started oozing from the injury. Som Nath also gave Dandal blow on the head of the complainant, Sandhya Devi gave beatings with kick and fist blows. The complainant raised alarm and on hearing this, Puran Chand and Lalita Devi daughter of Puran Chand came on the spot and saved the complainant. PW-1 Tarsem Chand in his statement in the Court has stated that Ram Lal, Som Nath and Sandhya Devi were trying to make kuhal in the field of complainant and at that time occurrence took place. In cross-examination he has admitted that he had litigation with the accused and the case filed by him was dismissed and the appeal was also dismissed. He has admitted that Puran Chand is his real uncle (Taya). He has also stated that near the place of occurrence there are abadies of Nasib Chand, Ram Chand and Satpal. The blood fell on the ground. He became unconscious but regained consciousness later on. He denied that on that date he and his family had given beatings to the respondents. He has stated that respondents were medically examined and they are facing a case before Sub Divisional Magistrate regarding the incident of that date. 6. PW-2 Lalita Devi has stated in cross-examination that Ram Lal had given 15/16 blows of Kassi and in addition he gave beatings to Tarsem with hands. Som Nath gave 3/4 blows of Dandal. She has stated that Tarsem is the son of his real brother-in-law. She had not seen any injury on the person of Ram Lal and Sandhya Devi. PW-5 Dr. N.K. Bhardwaj who examined Tarsem had found three injuries on his person. According to him injuries No.2 and 3 can be caused by blunt 4 weapon and injury No.1 by sharp edged weapon. The injury No.2 was on the right forearm and injury No.3 on the chest. Dr. N.K. Bhardwaj had appeared in defence as DW-2 and has stated that on 14.10.2001 he had examined Ram Lal, Sandhya Devi and found injuries on their person as stated by him in his statement. 7. The complainant in rapat Ex.PA has stated that Ram Lal was taking water from kuhal through the field of complainant which the complainant had objected. In Ex.PA he has not stated that Sandhya Devi and Som Nath were also helping Ram Lal or otherwise taking water through kuhal. The complainant as PW-1 has stated that Ram Lal, Sandhya Devi and Som Nath were taking water from kuhal through his field. The complainant has thus improved his case in the Court. The complainant has stated that one blow was given by Ram Lal on his head and one Dandal blow was given by Som Nath on his head. He has stated that blood oozed out from the injuries. PW-2 Lalita Devi has stated that Ram Lal had given 15/16 blows of spade on the person of Tarsem. Som Nath had also given 3/ 4 blows of Dandal on the person of complainant. PW-2 has totally contradicted the statement of PW-1 regarding the blows of Spade and Dandal given by Ram Lal and Som Nath. PW-1 has stated that blood fell on the ground but no such blood was collected. It has come on record that Lalita Devi is a close relative of complainant. The abadies of other persons are nearby the place of occurrence but no explanation has been given by the prosecution why the persons residing in those abadies were not associated during the investigation and examined in the court. 8. The medical evidence relied by the prosecution is not matching with the injuries stated by the complainant. PW-5 has 5 noticed three injuries on the person of complainant, out of them according to him injuries No.2 and 3 were caused by blunt weapon but it is not the case of the prosecution that any blunt weapon was used for causing the injuries. The third injury no doubt the doctor has stated that is the result of sharp edged weapon but there is no explanation how only one injury can be caused on the head of the complainant when PW- 2 has stated that 15 or 16 blows of spade were given by respondent No.1 on the head of complainant. The complainant himself has stated that one blow was given by respondent No.1 on his head with spade and one blow was given by respondent No.3 on his head with Dandal, therefore, even as per complainant there should be two injuries on the head of the complainant by sharp edged weapon but the doctor has found only one injury. Dr. N.K. Bhardwaj while appearing as DW-2 has stated that he had examined Ram Lal and Sandhya Devi on 14.10.2001 and found injuries on their person. The prosecution has not explained how Ram Lal and Sandhya Devi have sustained injuries on 14.10.2001 on their person. The learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly appreciated the material on record. The prosecution has failed to make out any case for interference. A possible view has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate on the basis of material on record while acquitting the respondents. There is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds discharged. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge August 13 , 2009 (sks)