IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.696 of 2001 Date of decision : October 15, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Samangla Devi & ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy A.G. For the respondents : Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment of trial Magistrate, whereby Samangla Devi and others, who were charged and tried for offences, under Sections 323,325,506 read with Section 34 IPC, have been acquitted. Allegations, on which the respondents were tried for the aforesaid offences, as they emerge from the evidence on record, may be summed up thus. On 14th October 2000, around 11.00 A.M., when PW6 Shakuntla Devi and her daughter PW7 Pawana Devi were present in the courtyard of their house and preparing clay, all the respondents went there armed with iron rods and dandas and gave beating to both of them. Shakuntla Devi PW6 sustained serious injuries. She was taken to District Hospital, Dharamshala. She was medically examined. Swelling over her forehead was noticed, besides several other injuries. Fore-head was x-rayed and fracture of left parietal bone of skull was found. Shakuntla Devi made a report to the police, on the basis of which a case was registered. …2… 2. Trial Court charged the respondents with the offences, under Sections 323,325,506 read with Section 34 IPC. Respondents pleaded not guilty and, therefore, they were put on trial. Trial Magistrate has acquitted the respondents holding that there are contradictions in the statements of the injured and her daughter and otherwise also, their evidence does not inspire confidence. Respondents took the plea that they had been falsely implicated due to strained relations between them and the complainant side. 3. I have gone through the evidence and heard the Learned Additional Advocate General. No doubt, PW6 Shakuntla Devi and her daughter, PW7 Pawana Devi stated that they were assaulted by the respondents with dandas and iron rods, when they were preparing clay in the courtyard of their house and that both of them sustained injuries, but the medico legal evidence comprising of the testimony of PW10 Dr. S. Chauhan does not fully corroborate their testimony. Doctor stated that the injuries, which were noticed on the person of Shakuntla Devi PW6 could have been caused by some blunt weapon. However, he did not say that the injuries could have been caused by use of dandas and the iron rods, which had been taken into possession by the police during investigation. At the same time, PW10 very categorically stated that all the four injuries noticed on the person of Shakuntla Devi could have been sustained as a result of fall. 4. There is a serious infirmity in the evidence of the prosecution. According to Shakuntla Devi PW6 and Pawana Devi PW7, respondents gave beatings to both of them with the dandas and iron rods. Pawana Devi stated that she also sustained injuries as a result of the beating given by the respondents and she too was medically examined. However, evidence with regard to medical …3… examination of PW7 Pawana Devi has been withheld, which gives rise to legitimate presumption that she had not sustained any injury. Now, if Pawana Devi PW7 had also been beaten up with iron rods and dandas, as testified by her and also by PW6 Shakuntla, her mother, some injuries were supposed to be there on her person. Absence of injuries on the person of Pawana Devi, when seen in the light of the deposition of PW10 Dr. S. Chauhan that the injuries observed by him on the person of PW6 Shakuntla Devi could have been sustained due to fall, renders the entire prosecution version highly doubtful. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere in the judgment of the acquittal passed by the trial Magistrate. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. October 15, 2008(vs) ( Surjit Singh ), J