IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. A. No. 250 of 2003 Date of decision: 16.09.2010 _____________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh … Appellant. Versus Sandeep Kumar @ Sonu & Others … Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the Appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent No.1 : Mr. Sunil Awasthi Amicus Curiae. For respondent No.2&3 : Ms. Kanta Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Ahuja, J (Oral). This is an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, dated 2.5.2000 vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 323, 451, 427 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 28.12.1995, complainant PW1, Kamlesh Kumari, alleged that at about 8.30 p.m. the respondents entered her house, threw 1. Whether Reporter of the local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment. 2 stones and gave abuses and gave beatings to her and her brother. On these allegations, a case was registered against the respondents and after investigation, the challan was filed before learned trial Court, who tried the respondents for the offences detailed above, leading to their acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. On appraisal of the evidence on record of the case, it is clear that the prosecution had examined eight witnesses. The statements of the three eye witnesses including that of the complainant can be said to be a material. PW-I Kamlesh Kumari, who is the complainant, has stated in her statement that about three years ago at about 4/5p.m., when she was present in her house along with her friend, Shabnam, Pradeep, respondent came to their house along with his brother and one another boy. They threw stones on their house, gave abuses and she was rescued by one Gaddi Boy. Thereafter, all the three respondents again came to their house, kicked their door, which was broken, threw stones and broke the slates of the house. They also gave beatings to her, her mother, her brother and brother’s wife. She also suffered injuries on her person. She also stated that Sandeep was having a knife and when she raised an alarm, the persons gathered there and accused persons ran away. She admitted in cross-examination that they have compromised and she also admitted her signature on the compromise. 3 4. PW6, Naro Devi has stated in regard to the occurrence that she was sitting on a hill-top enjoying the Sun and the respondents came there, threw stones upon Kamlesh Kumari. Thereafter, the other respondents came twice, she was told about the occurrence, while her daughter again she stated that the accused came, threw stones, kicked the door and she was also given beating along with her daughter. She so stated that the injuries were also inflicted upon her son and daughter-in- law. PW4, Ajudhiya Devi who is the daughter-in-law of PW Naro Devi, PW6 Naro Devi has stated that the accused tried to break the door of their house and gave beatings to her, her sister-in-law and her mother-in-law, with kicks and fist blows. She also stated that she was also given blow on the fist which was not so stated by other witnesses. 5. The medical examination of only PW1 Smt. Kamlesh and Naro Devi, PW6 was only conducted which has been proved from the statement of medical officer PW2, Dr. Satish Sharma, who has stated that the injuries were simple in nature and could be caused with blunt weapon. He also admitted that the injuries are possible by fall. From the above discussion, it is clear that all the witnesses have given different version of the occurrence or the injuries sustained by which of the prosecution witnesses and it has also come up as per the occurrence, that took place in the morning, one Shabnam and another boy were also present there and persons had also gathered in the evening when there is an adalat. None has 4 been examined from those witnesses. It has also come upon record that there was some allegation with regard to the PW1 Kamlesh Kumari allegedly, having illicit relations with the father of the respondents for which she was threatened by members of the public and thus blackened her face and that may be the reason of dispute in between the two parties. The facts of the case as have been brought on record, clearly lead to the inference that the allegations made by the complainant were not substantiated by the witnesses, who have stated about the occurrence or the manner or the injuries received by them differently and they do not support one another and as such the statements of prosecution witnesses were rightly not believed by learned trial Court. 6. In view of the above discussions, it is clear that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse, calling for an inference by this Court and as such, there is no merit in the appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. Bail bonds of respondents stand discharged. (V.K. Ahuja) Judge. 16th September, 2010 Pritam