IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.Appeal 731 of 2001 Decided on: 18.12.2008 State of H P Appellant Versus Partap Singh & others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh.J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 Yes For the appellant : Mr. J.S.Guleria, Law officer. For the Respondent Mr. R. K. Gautam, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Radhika Gautam, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court, under sections 323, 324, 325 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Case No.RBT.95-II-96/91 decided on 1.8.1997 was reversed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 1.3.2001 in Cr. Appeal No.21/2000/97 and the respondents were acquitted. The acquittal of the respondents has been challenged by the State in this appeal. Leave to appeal was granted on 8.12.2001. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? yes 2 Mr. Guleria, learned Law officer has exonerated argued that the learned first Appellate Court has wrongly acquitted the respondents from the offences charged and if evidence of the prosecution is properly looked into, it would transpire that the reasons given for acquittal of the respondents were not borne out from the record, thus there are grounds to convert the acquittal into conviction. Contra Shri R. K. Gautam, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Radhika Gautam, Advocate, while supporting the findings of the first Appellate Court, argued that very basis of the prosecution story is doubtful as the injuries on the person of respondents were not explained which caused a doubt on the manner how the incident had taken place. The factual matrix of the case, as asserted by the prosecution is that on 8.6.1991 at about 8 p.m. while Sagla Ram complainant (PW-1) was returning to his house, respondents Partap Singh, Wattan Singh and Punjab Singh met him near the shop of Malkiat Singh, they were having dandas in their hands and started giving beatings to him. On hearing his cries, Jit Singh and Vidya Devi got attracted to the place of occurrence. They saved him from the clutches of the respondents. It is also alleged that Beasan Devi (PW- 4) wife of the complainant also reached the spot, she too was given beatings by the respondents. Thereafter, Sheela Devi and Kehro Devi respondents also reached the spot and fisticuffed Beasan Devi. The incident was alleged to have narrated to the Pradhan of the Panchayat and the matter was reported to the police. 3 The complainant as well as his wife Beasan Devi were got medically examined. PW2 Beasan Devi sustained some of the injuries by sharp-edged weapon (blunt in nature) and further she is also to have sustained fracture of Ist metacarpal bone, as per X-ray report Ex.PW6-B. After recording the statement of the witnesses and collecting the MLCs, the challan was presented in the court for trial of the respondents. Respondents were charge-sheeted for the offences aforesaid to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondents were also examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They also led the defence evidence. At the end of the trial, respondents were convicted and sentenced to undergo : i) simple imprisonment for two months under section 323 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each ii) simple imprisonment for six months under section 324 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each; iii) simple imprisonment for one year under section 325 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Respondents assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence in the court of Sessions and vide a detailed 4 judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, referred to above, they were acquitted on the ground that Wattan Singh and Kehro Devi respondent had also sustained injuries in the same incident about which the matter was also reported to the police. They were got medically examined and the injuries on their person were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. Thus, it was not clear as to who was the aggressor. It is significant to note that Wattan Singh respondent had lodged a report (Ex.DW-3/2) with respect to the same incident in Police Station Bangana, alleging therein that the complainant party was nourishing the grudge against him. He also referred to the incident, which had taken place 5-6 days ago and further alleged that on 8.6.1991 after ploughing the fields when he reached near water pond Om Parkash s/o Barfi Ram met him. Both of them were engaged in their talks. In the meantime complainant Sagla Ram came out from the saw mill of Dharam Singh with a danda in his hand and hit him on his head, on this he raised hue and cry but Sagla Ram again gave another blow on his right shoulder. Thereafter Asha Devi d/o Sagla Ram, who was standing about 20 feet away started hurling stones, which incident was witnessed by DW-1 Shiksha Devi. It was further mentioned that PW-2 Biasan Devi wife of the complainant, PW-3 Malkiat Singh, PW-4 Vidya Devi and PW-5 Dharam Singh all prosecution witnesses came there and started giving beatings to his wife Kehrao Devi. In the meantime Sita Devi wife of Dharam Singh also reached there along with some co- 5 villagers. The complainant party ran away and took shelter in the shop of PW-3 Malkiat Singh. On this report, police appears to have lodged the FIR and got medically examined the injured, namely Kehro Devi and Wattan Singh. This version has been supported by the respondents in their statements, recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and examined DW-3 Head constable Gurdass Singh to lend strength to their defence. PW1 Sagla Ram and his other witnesses examined to prove this case are close relatives and on the close scrutiny of their statements, it transpires that the very basis of the incident was suppressed by each of them like an ice-berg. The truth did not surface. They did not come out with a true and correct version. Injuries on the person of Wattan Singh & Kehro Devi respondents stand proved. PW-7 Dr. Manju Behal in her cross- examination has admitted having examined respondent Kehro Devi w/o Wattan Singh, she had sustained inasmuch as eight injuries on her person and one of the injuries was on her head. The said Doctor had also examined Wattan Singh on the same day and on examination she noticed three injuries on his person. PW7 Dr. Manju Behal has also proved their medico-legal-certificates Ex.DA and Ex. DB respectively and duration of injuries is relatable to the incident in question. This fact was not properly appreciated by the learned trial court, as such the implicit reliance placed by him on the lop sided version of the prosecution witnesses culminated into mis-carriage of justice, which was rightly corrected in appeal by the learned 6 Additional Sessions Judge, In fact the respondents were able to probablise their defence. On culling the evidence I am of the view that non- explanting the injuries on the person of respondent Wattan Singh and Kehro Devi,in the above circumstances makes the case of the prosecution highly doubtful and it is difficult to hold that the respondents were the aggressors, as such I do not find any ambiguity and illegality in the judgment of reversal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge thereby acquitting the respondents from the offences charged. As such, the appeal filed by the State sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. December 18, 2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (D)