IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 242 of 2002. Judgment reserved on 18.5.2009 Date of decision: 19.5.2009 __________________________________________________ State of H.P. …….Appellant Vs. Sohan Lal & others .. 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. Rajnish Lall, Amicus Curiae. Kuldip Singh, Judge The State has come in appeal against judgment dated 10.10.2001 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan in Criminal case No.146/2 of 96, acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 325, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW-2 Kanu Ram on 28.1.1996 vide rapat Ex.PW-6/A reported at Police Post, Subathu and thereafter FIR Ex.PA was registered at Police Station, Dharampur. The prosecution case in brief is that on 28.1.1996 at about 5.30 p.m. PW-2 was sitting in his courtyard. Sohan Lal accused came there and directed the complainant not to allow the bathing water to pass through from particular place, on hearing noise sister of Sohan Lal, his mother and an unknown person came there and gave beatings to PW-2 and threatened Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 to kill him. In the meantime Med Ram came there and on seeing him Sohan Lal, Kalawati his sister and other man fled away from the spot. He sustained injuries on his head and arms. The complainant was got medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW-4/B, site plan Ex.PW-4/C was prepared. On completion of investigation the challan was presented in the Court and respondents were charged for offence punishable under Sections 323, 325, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined 7 witnesses and placed on record some documents. The statements of respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. , they denied the prosecution case but led no evidence in defence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondents as noticed above, hence this appeal. 3. I have heard Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State and Mr. Rajnish Lall, Amicus Curiea for the respondents and have also gone through the record. In FIR Ex.PA, PW-2 Kanu Ram complainant has stated that Sohan Lal came in his courtyard on 28.1.1996 at about 5.30.pm. and directed him that his bathing water should not flow in a particular manner. On hearing this, sister of Sohan Lal, his son and one unknown person came in his courtyard, gave him beatings and threats. In Ex.PA he has not stated that blood oozed out from any injury, nor he has stated in FIR that he had sustained injuries on any other part of the body except head and arms. Ex.PW-4/B is the MLC of PW-2 Kanu Ram where injuries were found on the nose, surrounding area, left forearm and palm. PW-4 Dr. G.D. Rohit has stated that injury No.1 cannot be caused by fist, injuries No.1,3 and 4 may be caused by fall on an uneven surface. There was 3 no fresh bleeding from the nose at the time of examination. PW-5 Dr. B.K. Bhardwaj with reference to report Ex.PW-5/A has stated that such injuries can be sustained in a fall . 4. PW-2 Kanu Ram has stated that Sohan Lal, Kalawati, Krishana Devi and one more abused him and gave beatings with slaps and fist blows and by pelting stones. Med Ram came on hearing his call, thereafter Ashok had also come. In cross-examination he has stated that he sustained injuries on head and right arm. He did not sustain any injury on any part of the body except head and arm. He has admitted that Med Ram and Ashok Kumar witnesses in the case have enmity with the accused and they were his witnesses in the earlier case also. 5. PW-2 Kanu Ram in the Court has improved his statement. In FIR Ex.PA he has nowhere stated that stones were used by the accused for giving beatings to him. He has not stated in the FIR that Ashok Kumar also came on the spot. In MLC Ex.PW-4/B injuries have been shown on his nose, left forearm and palm whereas PW-2 has stated that he sustained injuries on right arm. Thus, PW-2 has either contradicted his earlier statement in the FIR or has improved his version. It has come on record that there were 20-25 houses near the place of occurrence but the investigation officer had not joined independent witnesses during investigation nor such witnesses were examined in the case. PW-2 Kanu Ram has admitted that Med Ram and Ashok Kumar have enmity with accused and they were his witnesses in earlier case also. PW-3 Med Ram has not stated that stones were pelted by the accused on PW-2 Kanu Ram. PW-4 Dr. G.D. Rohit has stated that injury No.1 is not possible by fist blow and injuries 1,3 and 4 can be 4 caused by fall on uneven surface. PW-5 Dr. B.K. Bhardwaj has stated that injuries can be sustained by fall. 6. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly appreciated the material on record and has taken a possible view which emerges from the evidence on record. The appellant has failed to make out any case for interference. Resultantly, appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds discharged. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge May 19, 2009 (sks)