IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.461 of 2001 Judgment reserved on:25.7.2008. Decided on: July 31, 2008. State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Manohar Lal & Ors. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Appellant : Mr Anshul Bansal, Addl.A.G. For the respondents: Mr Jagdish Vats, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge: This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 21.3.2000 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohru in Criminal case No.36-2 of 2000 acquitting the respondents under Sections 323, 325, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.4.2000 at about 2 p.m. Bal Krishan and Bhopinder, sons of PW-1 Moti Lal complainant, were going towards their orchard for Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… doing spray work, Manohar Lal accused met them near the orchard, who started hurling abuses on them. Bal Krishan and Bhopinder returned to their home. At about 3 p.m. accused came near the house of Bal Krishan and Bhopinder and started pelting stones towards the house. The complainant and his son Ranvir Singh came out, accused pelted stones on them also, as a result of which they sustained injuries. The accused were advancing threats of causing injuries to others also. The incident was reported to the police at about 9.50 p.m. on the same day and F.I.R. Ext.PW-7/C was registered. Moti Lal and Ranvir Singh were got medically examined, simple injuries were found on the person of Moti Lal and grievous injuries on the person of Ranvir Singh. The stones lying in the verandah of the house of the complainant were taken into possession. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. The accused were charged under Sections 323, 325 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to bring home the charge. The statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the prosecution case and submitted that complainant party had given beatings to Manohar Lal. The accused examined three witnesses, accused Manohar Lal …3… himself stepped into the witness box. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on conclusion of trial acquitted the accused on 21.3.2001, hence, this appeal by the State. 3. I have heard Mr.Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant, Mr.Jagdish Vats, learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the record. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has not properly appreciated the material on record. The incident has been proved on record by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The view taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate from the evidence which has come on record is wrong. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted for setting aside of the impugned judgment. On the contrary, Mr.Jagdish Vats, learned counsel for the respondents, has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that after proper appreciation of evidence on record the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly acquitted the respondent and no fault can be found with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Court below. 4. PW-1 Moti Lal has stated that on 29.4.2000 at about 3.30 p.m. he was in his house and in the meantime stones were thrown in his house. He came out in the verandah and suffered stone injury. He saw Narain Singh, …4… Diwan Singh, Manohar Lal and Kamla Nand who pelted stones on them. He and Ranvir sustained injuries as they were hit by the stones. Ranvir Singh suffered fracture in his arm. He went to Police Post, Tikkar at about 9 p.m. and recorded the matter. The police got them medically examined. The stones from the verandah were sealed which were having blood marks. The blood was also there on the verandah. In cross examination, he has stated that the accused live separately. Kamla Nand accused is about 85 years and walks with the help of stick. He has stated that he and his son Ranvir were in the room and his other sons were working. The stones were thrown by all accused including Kamla Nand. The other houses in the village are at a distance of about 250-300 feet. He has stated that Man Singh is his nephew and he resides at Deoridhar which is at a distance of about 5 kilometers from his residence. The accused did nothing except throwing stones. Police Post, Tikkar is about 2 kilometers from his residence. He has denied that they gave beatings to Manohar Lal with dandas. He has admitted that Manohar Lal had reported against them at Police Post, Tikkar. The police came to his house after third day of the incident. He had kept the stones in the verandah for three days and during this period he did not show those stones to anybody. …5… 5. PW-2 Man Singh did not support the prosecution and he was declared hostile. He was cross examined by the prosecution but prosecution could not extract any material in the cross examination supporting the case of the prosecution. He, however, admitted his signatures on memo Ext.PW-1/A. He denied that accused pelted stones in his presence. PW-3 Ranvir Singh has stated that on 29.4.2000 at about 3 p.m. accused had thrown stones on their house and also hurled abuses. They sustained injuries due to pelting of the stones. He suffered injuries on his hands, arms and head, his father also sustained injuries on the head. The accused ran away towards the ground and hurled abuses and extended threats that they would kill them. He was medically examined. In cross examination, he has stated that the accused live separately. They had a dispute about one field. He has admitted that their house is in the centre of the village. He denied that Manohar Lal was given beatings by them. He has denied that they sustained injuries when Manohar Lal defended himself when he was being attacked by them. He has admitted that Manohar Lal had reported the matter to the police regarding the incident. He denied that he sustained injuries due to pelting of stones. 6. PW-4 Dr.Anuj Kumar Gupta has proved MLC Ext.PW-4/A of Ranvir Singh and X-Ray films Ext.PW-4/B, …6… Ext.PW-4/C, Ext.PW-4/D. He has also proved MLC Ext.PW- 4/E of Moti Lal. In cross examination, he has stated that injuries can be caused by fall on some hard surface but not by single fall. PW-5 Bal Krishan has stated that on 29.4.2000 at about 2 p.m. he and Bhopinder had gone to the orchard for doing spray. Manohar Lal met them near the orchard. He started talking about the land dispute and hurled abuses, both of them retuned to their house. At about 3 p.m. they heard noise and sound of pelting of stones. The accused pelted stones as a result of which his father and Ranvir Singh sustained injuries and blood started oozing out. He and his brother Bhopinder took their father and Ranvir inside. The accused were also abusing. In cross examination, he has stated that Manohar Lal was going towards Tikkar. The accused have no house in the village and they reside only in Dogri which is at a distance of 2-2 ½ kilometers from village Gujandli. He has not seen the accused while pelting stones. He has stated that his house is in the centre of village Gujandli. 7. PW-6 Jyoti Lal has proved memo Ext.PW-1/A vide which nine stones were recovered. He has also proved copy of Roznamcha dated 29.4.2001 Ext.PW-6/A. PW-7 ASI Kanshi Ram is the Investigating Officer. He has proved F.I.R. PW-7/C. In cross examination, he has stated that …7… before Rapat No.14 Manohar Lal had lodged report and he had injury on his hand. He was also got medically examined. On the basis of report of Manohar Lal F.I.R. No.70 was registered. Manohar Lal had reported that quarrel took place in the ground. The neighbourers of Moti Lal had shown their ignorance about the incident. 8. It is, thus, clear that Manohar Lal earlier got registered F.I.R. No.70 and thereafter F.I.R. No.71 was registered against the accused. It has come in evidence that house of the complainant party is situated in the centre of the village but no independent witness from the village was joined in investigation and examined in the Court. PW-2 Man Singh is the nephew of PW-1 Moti Lal and he has not supported the prosecution case. The other witnesses PW-1 Moti lal, PW-3 Ranvir Singh and PW-5 Bal Krishan are from one family. They are interested witnesses, it is not safe to rely on their testimonies without corroboration from independent witnesses. It has come in evidence that accused Kamla Nand is about 85 years of age and he walks with stick. It has also come in evidence that all the accused reside separately at a distance of about 2-2 ½ kilometers from village Gujandli where incident took place. The prosecution case is that even Kamla Nand actively participated in the incident by throwing stones on the …8… complainant party. This part of the case of the prosecution is not believable that a man of 85 years would walk a distance of 2-2 ½ kilometers and thereafter he would participate in throwing stones on the complainant party. Manohar Lal accused admittedly sustained injuries as per PW-7. The defence of the accused is that complainant party gave beatings to Manohar Lal and it is quite possible when Manohar Lal was defending himself some injuries might have been suffered by the complainant party. The accused have totally denied the case as projected by the prosecution. As per PW-1 Moti Lal the stones remained in the verandah for about three days and he did not bring to the notice of any other person those stones. PW-1 has stated that he and his son Ranvir Singh were present in the house and rest of family members were working in the field. In view of this statement of PW-1, presence of Bal Krishan and Bhopinder on the spot is doubtful. The incident took place at about 3 p.m. and the report was made at about 9.50 p.m. vide Ext.PW-6/A. PW-1 has stated that Police Post, Tikkar is at a distance of about 2 kilometers from his house. In these circumstances, there is delay in reporting the matter to the police and delay has not been explained. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly appreciated the material on record while acquitting the respondents and …9… the view taken by him is supported from the evidence on record. The prosecution has failed to make out any case for interference. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondents, are discharged. July 31, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)