IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. : 551 of 1996. Decided on: 21.04.2010. _________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. -Versus- Kirpa Ram and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. __________________________________________________________ For the appellant : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Deepak Gupta, Judge(Oral) : This appeal by the State, is directed against the judgment dated 14.11.1995, delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bilaspur in Case No.150/2 of 95/92, whereby the accused have been acquitted of having committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 326, 325, 323 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The undisputed facts of case are that a fight took place in the morning of 1st August, 1992 between the complainant party on the one side and the accused on the other. Two F.I.Rs. were lodged in this regard. F.I.R., Ex. PW-1/A, was 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. lodged by the complainant party, out of which the present case arises. F.I.R., Ex. PW-13/A was lodged at the instance of the accused on the date itself. They were both lodged almost simultaneously, one by the complainant at 10:15 A.M. and the other by the accused at 10:30 A.M. It is also proved on record that injuries were sustained by both, the members of the complainant party as well as by the accused persons. The accused persons have placed on record M.L.Cs. Ex. D-1, D-2, D- 3, D-4 and D-5, which are all of the date 01.08.1992, which show that five of the accused persons sustained injuries and out of them, accused Shyam Lal, Janki Devi, Champa Devi, Dina Nath and Rattan Lal suffered grievous injuries and these persons remained in hospital for 5-7 days. In such a situation, it becomes necessary to find out what was the genesis of the dispute and who were the aggressors. It is also the duty of the prosecution to give sufficient explanation for the injuries caused on the accused persons. 3. It is admitted that both the parties are closely related to each other. Kirpa Ram, one of the members of the accused party, is the real brother of Dina Nath. Admittedly, there is a boundary dispute between the two brothers, which was going on for long. According to complaint Ex.PW-1/A, there is some vacant land of the complaint party between the houses of the complainant and the accused, and accused Kirpa Ram and his family members used to urinate on the said land. On 01.08.1992 also, when Kirpa Ram went to urinate on this land, PW-2 Banti Devi, mother of the complainant objected to the same and on this, she was first beaten by Kirpa Ram and then by other members of his family. However, while appearing in the Court as PW-2, Banti Devi gave a totally different statement. She has not stated that Kirpa Ram was urinating on the spot. According to her, Kripa Ram just started abusing her and when she objected to the same, he started dismantling the wall built to protect the field and thereafter, he hit her on head with one of the stones uprooted from the wall. Thereafter, other accused persons came on the spot and started beating her and when her family members tried to intervene, they were also beaten. 4. The complaint Ex. PW-13/A made by Shyam Lal, son of Kirpa Ram is to the effect that on 31.07.1992, he and his father were threatened by the members of the complainant party and when on the morning of 01.08.1992 at about 5 A.M., his father Kirpa Ram went to answer the call of nature, PW-2 Banti Devi objected to his urinating there and immediately, she and her family members started beating his father, and that led to the fight between the two sides. 5. Initially, both the sides had given one version as to how the fight started, namely that it arose because of the fact that Kirpa Ram was urinating, to which PW-2 Banti Devi objected. As stated above, PW-2 Banti Devi came out with a totally different version in the Court. Therefore, her statement cannot be accepted to be the gospel truth. There is something which has been hidden from the Court. 6. The accused persons suffered serious injuries and they were all medically examined. However, the Investigating Officer has not given any reasonable explanation as to why no prompt action was taken on their F.I.R. It has also come in the evidence that one member of the complainant party was working as Pharmacist in District Bilaspur and he managed certain medical reports in favour of the complainant party. 7. The medical evidence does not support the statements of the witnesses. According to the complaint, Kirpa Ram used a Kulhara to give a blow on Mansha Ram. However, the doctor has clearly stated that the injury caused on Mansha Ram was by a blunt weapon. A Kulhara by no stretch of imagination can be called a blunt weapon and, therefore, this also falsifies the version of the prosecution. According to the complaint, Sohan Lal was given a blow of the drat by accused Shyam Lal. Dr. A.K. Sharma, PW-11 has categorically stated that the injury on the person of Sohan Lal could not have been caused by the drat in question. This evidence of the doctor clearly shows that the witnesses of the prosecution are not telling the truth. Therefore, it is unreliable to believe their version. The learned trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused on these grounds. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (Deepak Gupta), Judge (Rajiv Sharma) Judge April 21, 2010. (bhupender)