1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 663 of 2001. Date of Decision: 17-11-2008. ____________________________________________________________ State of H P. Appellant. Versus Tirath Ram and others. Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Sh.J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For respondents. : None. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J . (oral) The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents recorded under Section 323, 325, 341, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code passed in case no. 814-1/96, 215-II/96 decided on 5.5.2001 by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Precisely, the case of the prosecution has been that the respondents were apprehending that Pyare Lal son of Kirpa Ram complainant was involved in eve-teasing of their daughter which created bad blood between both the parties. It is alleged that on 14-5-1996, Pyare Lal aforesaid, was beaten-up by respondents Tirath, Jagdish Chand, Parkash Chand and Karam Singh when he had gone to village Dhawal. Again on 15-5-1996, respondents Karam Chand and Raju alias Raj Kumar also gave thrashing to him Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 while he was on his way to School. The incident was allegedly reported to Bangalu Ram Ward Member of the Local Panchayat who advised them to inform the Police. On 16-5-1996, at about 7.00 a.m, it is alleged that while going to report the matter to the Police, the respondents caught hold of the complainant and threw him on the ground and gave him kick and fist blows with the result, one tooth of the upper jaw broke down. The respondents prevented his wife Shankri and his son Pyare Lal from rescuing the complainant. The said incident was allegedly seen by witnesses Roop Lal, Jagdish and Gian Chand who also intervened and rescued the complainant from the respondents. The matter was reported to the Police. The substance of the incident was recorded in the Daily Diary Exhibit pW10/A. Complainant Kirpa Ram, his wife and son Pyare Lal were got medically examined from PW13 Dr. Inder Singh. He found that one tooth of the complainant was up-rooted from the socket, whereas other was dislocated. After getting the medical reports, the case was registered under Section 325, 323 read with Section 34, I.P.C. vide FIR Exhibit PW9/A. Thereafter the police visited the spot, prepared the site plan Exhibit PW11/A of the alleged occurrence. After recording the statements of the witnesses, challan was presented in the court for trial of the respondents under the aforesaid Sections. The respondents pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial. Prosecution examined its witnesses to prove the case. Respondents in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the 3 Code of Criminal Procedure denied the alleged incident. No evidence in defense was led by them. At the end of the trial, the respondents were acquitted on the ground that the independent witnesses named in the F.I.R.did not support the case of the prosecution and the statement of the complaint, his wife and son were in sharp contradictions with each other and also with the medical evidence. Shri J.S. Guleria, Law Officer has vehemently argued that although the independent witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution but the statements of injured witnesses are worth inspiring confidence and could have been acted upon. On behalf of the respondent, no-body put in appearance to assist the Court. However, after re-appraising the evidence on record, I am of the view that the story of the prosecution suffers from many defects. Firstly, the so-called witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and secondly, there are material contradictions in the statement of the complainant, his wife Shankari and Chain Singh and Pyare Lal his sons. Pyare Lal (PW1) is referring to the three incidents. Firstly, it is alleged to have taken place on 14.5.1996 and second on 15.5.1996 and third on 16.5.96. With respect to the earlier two incidents, the complainant is stated to have informed Bangalu Ram the ward member who advised them to report the matter to the Police but to support this version, he was not examined. Further with respect to the incident which had taken place on 16-5-96, PW1 has stated that when he reached along with his wife and son near the house of Bangalu Ram, the respondents met them there and pushed him 4 down. Again when they came down ward, the respondents encircled them and stopped and then again he was put down on the ground and they started fisticuffing and giving kick blows. He became unconscious. His one tooth was broken and another artificial tooth came out. He further stated that his wife and sons were also given beatings by the respondents. There were no visible injuries caused to the other family members. In cross-examination, he has stated that his front tooth was already broken which was replaced by the artificial one. He did not say about any visible injury having been caused in the said incident whereas, his wife PW2 has stated that her husband sustained about 15/20 visible injuries on his person and further deposed that the respondents had also used metal grip of about one feet in length in causing the injuries to her husband which fact has not been substantiated by either the medico legal certificate or by the complainant himself. PW13 Dr. Inder Singh did not find even a single injury on the person of PW1. PW8 Dr. K.K. Vaidya to whom the complainant was referred by Dr. Inder Singh found the molars and the upper both incisors missing which looked completely healed. There was no gum injury in relation to the incisor teeth. The Doctor further in his cross- examination, has admitted that there was no injury on the upper lip nor there was any external injury on the lower lip. In case of the external blow having been received by the complainant, the external injuries were bound to be there on the lips of the complainant. PW3 Pyare Lal has also stated about bleeding injury on his fore-head which is not substantiated by the Doctor at the time of his medical examination. In his cross-examination, he 5 admitted that upper tooth of his father (PW1) which was allegedly broken was an artificial one. Chain Singh, the another son of the complainant was also examined as PW11 who is alleged to have seen the incident on 16.5.1996. He has deposed that there was an injury on the mouth of his father which was bleeding but again this fact remained un-substantiated by the medical evidence, even complainant himself did not say about the said injury. On culling the evidence, I find material contradictions in the statements of the complainant, his wife and sons which are quite irreconcilable. The alleged incident has not been substantiated by the witnesses named by the complainant. Thus, a substantial doubt has arisen from the evidence on record regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution story. In my opinion the learned trial Court has rightly recorded the acquittal of the respondents as it is borne out from the evidence on record and there is nothing for me to take a different view. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed requiring no interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal. (Surinder Singh) Judge. November 17, 2008. (bm)