IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.489 of 2004. Decided on: July 22, 2011. State of Himachal Pradesh. ……..Appellant. Versus Ramesh Chand. …..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr.A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Himmat Negi, Advocate, vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (oral): In this appeal, State has challenged the acquittal of the respondent, for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 2.3.2000, at about 11 A.M. at village Ghalaur, complainant Sanjeev Kumar (PW4) had gone to attend a marriage. He was way-laid by the respondent, who fisticuffed Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - him, which injuries on his face and his tooth got fractured. 4. The matter was reported to police. He was got medically examined from PW1 Dr. Sunita Kundu. She noticed two lacerated wounds on the gum and for the first molar tooth, he was referred for the opinion of the Dental Surgeon, PW2 Dr. Sandeep Sharma. On the perusal of the Medico Legal Certificate, he advised X- ray of the dental injury, which was taken under the supervision of PW3 S.K. Sharma, Radiologist. During the trial, the aforesaid doctors were examined. None of them have made a statement that there was fracture of the tooth of the complainant. 5. PW1 Dr. Sunita Kundu had initially examined the complainant, but she did not say anything about missing of the tooth or its fracture and even the Radiologist, who is alleged to have done the X-rays, appears to be not sure whether these X-rays belong to the complainant. The opinion with respect to the X-ray was sought to be proved from PW1 Dr. Sunita Kundu who in fact is not author thereof. Therefore, the offence charged is not proved. - 3 - 6. Shri A.K.Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State argued that though Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out, but alternative offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code stands proved. For that, I have examined the statement of the complainant vis-à-vis initial report made by him to the police. 7. In the report, which ultimately culminated in to FIR Ext.PW7/B, the complainant stated that there was fight between two factions in the Barat around 10.30 or 11 P.M. and when he was returning with PW5 Rajesh, he was attacked by the respondents. He was got medically examined and stitches were applied on the injuries sustained by him, but PW5 Rajesh aforesaid contradicted him. He did not say that he was accompanying PW4 Sanjeev Kumar, but according to him during the night, when he came out from the room to urinate, he noticed that Sanjeev Kumar was fisticuffed by the respondent. He separated them and because of such beatings, his tooth got fractured. He admitted that the complainant is his relative and was got medically examined during same night thereafter report was lodged in the Police Station. This facts stands - 4 - falsified from the fact that the medical examination of the complainant was conducted by PW1 Dr. Sunita Kundu at 5 P.M. on the next day and not the same night. There is also no evidence with respect to the stitching of the wounds. The possibility of sustaining simple injuries on the person of the complainant at the time of intervention by the complainant to separate two fighting factions in the marriage party cannot be ruled out. 8. Further vide Ext.PB a request which was made by the Investigating Officer for the medical examination of the complainant. It reveals that the injuries to the complainant were caused by the respondent and some others (etc.). There is also no reference with respect to missing or fracture of the tooth, which raises a doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution case as to how the complainant had sustained the injuries. Since it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused, who was responsible for causing the injuries to the complainant, as such the appeal lacks merit, therefore dismissed. - 5 - 9. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of this case. 10. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh), Judge. July 22, 2011. (Pds)