IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.180 of 2003 Date of Decision : April 9, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus: Mintu alias Man Chand & Another …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr. R. P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. For the respondents : Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). The accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 & 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The alleged offence was committed on 5.3.1998. In terms of its judgment dated 15.7.2002, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baijnath, Distt. Kangra, (H.P.) acquitted the accused in Criminal Case No. 204- II/99/98, titled as State vs. Mintu alias Man Chand & Anr. The State has filed this appeal seeking reversal of the said judgment. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 It is the case of the prosecution that on 5.3.1998 at about 11.00 p.m. the accused persons went to the house of the complainant Shahjada Ram (PW-1). They started abusing the complainant and asked him to come out of his house. When the complainant came out he was given blows with dandas due to which the complainant suffered injuries on his head, fingers and other parts of his body. When the complainant’s son Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW-2) tried to intervene and rescue the complainant he was also given blows. He was also hit with stones. The complainant lodged the report (Ext.PW-1/A) with the police on the basis of which FIR (Ext.PW-5/A) dated 11.3.1998 under Sections 323, 325 & 506/34 IPC was registered with Police Station, Baijnath. During investigation, the injured persons were got medically examined and their MLCs (Ext.PW-4/A & Ext.PW- 4/B) were obtained by the police. The dandas (Ext.P-1 & Ext.P- 2) were also taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo Ext.PW-1/B. With the completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court for trial. The accused persons did not plead guilty to the charged offences, hence were put to trial. In all, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses and the accused in their defence produced two witnesses. The Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offences. Hence, the present appeal. 3 The Court below has elaborately discussed the evidence and the material placed on record. The independent witnesses who allegedly witnessed the occurrence of the incident have not supported the case of the prosecution at all. It is the case of PW-1 that the incident was witnessed by Smt. Guddo Devi, Smt. Khiddo Devi (PW-7) and Sh. Jyoti Parkash (PW-10). Admittedly, Smt. Guddo Devi has not been examined in Court. PW-7 & PW-10 have not supported the prosecution case at all. They do not state that the accused persons gave any beatings to the complainant party. They have been extensively cross- examined by the Public Prosecutor but however nothing material has emerged therefrom. Importantly, in the statement Ext.PW-1/A so recorded by the complainant (PW-1), there is no mention of any other witness being present at the spot. In this background, the statement of Sh. Safi Ram (PW-11) needs to be examined. This witness no doubt supports the prosecution but however his statement does not inspire confidence. Undisputedly, this witness has got prior litigation with the accused persons. There is long standing animosity and enmity between them. If he was an independent witness to the occurrence of the incident, his name ought to have been mentioned along with the name of other persons. In this background, the possibility of this witness being introduced by the Investigating Agency only to support the version of PW-1 cannot be ruled out. 4 The dandas i.e. weapon of offence, shirt and pajama were recovered vide memo Ext.PW-2/A. Recovery memo is stated to have been signed by Sh. Karam Chand (PW-3). The testimony of this witness does not advance the case of the prosecution any further for the simple reasons that according to him the police had obtained his signatures on blank papers. This version of his cannot be said to be totally false as according to PW-1, the recovery was effected on 7.3.1998 but the date mentioned on the recovery memo is 12.3.1998. In fact his version falsifies the prosecution story. It is also the case of the prosecution that the clothes of the persons who received injuries were stained with blood. However, there is no evidence on record to prove this fact. This further renders the version of the prosecution to be doubtful. There is no doubt that as per the version of Dr. Jatinder Kaul (PW-4) who medically examined both PW-1 & PW-2, the injuries were found on their persons. The question however which needs to be examined is as to whether the accused persons who had inflicted such injuries to these witnesses. It be kept in mind that PW-4 does not rule out such injuries to be suffered due to fall on a hard surface. The recovery of the weapon of offence being in doubt, the possibility of the accused having suffered such an injury cannot be ruled out at all. 5 In this background, the statements of PW-1 & PW-2 need to be examined. In my considered view, their statements do not inspire confidence. The veracity and truthfulness of their deposition is in doubt. There are material contradictions and improvements in their statements. From perusal of the statement Ext.PW-1/A as also the F.I.R. (Ext.PW-5/A), it is evident that PW-1 who was confronted with the same has made the following improvements which are not mentioned in the complaint.: i) that the accused persons had abused the complainant; ii) that the accused persons had asked him to come out and that the light had been switched on; iii) that PW-2 was hit with stones; iv) that his daughter-in-law and sons also reached at the spot; v) that the danda belonging to accused Duni Chand was left by him at the spot after the occurrence of the incident; vi) that the clothes of Sh. Ramesh Chand were recovered at the spot by the police. It is correct that F.I.R. need not be encyclopedia but however it must contain certain important material and basic facts. The improvements are material and have changed the complexion of the entire case. PW-2 has only corroborated the 6 version of PW-1. Their 1st version given to the police is different from that deposed in the Court. Sh. Tilak Raj (PW-8) is the formal witness of recovery memo (Ext.PW-1/B). This recovery memo is also undated which fact stands admitted by him. Statement of Sh. Piare Lal (PW-9) is absolutely ambiguous with regard to the exact nature of the case property. The investigation in the matter has also not been carried out properly. It may not be fatal but however it only creates further doubt about the prosecution case. The accused has the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. The State could not point out from the material on record as to how the Court below has erred in appreciating the material or the acquittal of the accused persons has resulted in to travesty of justice. For all the aforesaid reasons, no ground for interference is made out and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds stand discharged. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. April 9, 2010. (rana)