IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.395 of 2001 Reserved on:22.07.2008. Decided on: July 23, 2008. Bimla Devi …Appellant. VERSUS Manoj Kumar (deceased) & Ors. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant: Mr Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr Lovnesh Kanwar, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge The complainant has come in appeal against the judgment dated 30.8.2000 passed by learned Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarkaghat in Private Complaint No.37-I/97(37-II/97) acquitting the respondents under Sections 500, 506(1), 34 IPC. 2. The case against the respondents was initiated on the basis of complaint filed by appellant / complainant. In the complaint, the complainant has alleged that on 25.2.1997 at about 6 p.m. when she returned to her house from office she found the respondents had formed unlawful assembly and collected themselves in front of her Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? Yes. …2… house in her Abadi Deh and they were forcibly constructing a Khokha, which was objected to by the complainant. On this respondents started abusing and threatening the complainant that they would burn her alive, they threw stones on her and she sustained injuries at 5 or 6 places. They also uttered “IS BADMAASH AURAT KO JAAN SAY KHATAM KAR DO”. The complainant saved herself by rushing into her house where Manoj Kumar (since deceased) forced his entry inside the room and he gave beatings to the complainant with wooden stick. On hearing the cries of the complainant Parkash Chand and Kuldip Chand came to the spot and on this Manoj Kumar ran away from the place of occurrence. The complaint was filed in the Court on 27.2.1997. The respondents were summoned and notice of accusation was put to them under Sections 500, 506(1), 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The complainant appeared as her own witness and she also examined PW-2 Kuldip Chand and PW-3 Parkash Chand. The statements of respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondents on 30.8.2000, hence, appeal by the complainant. 3. I have heard Mr.Dushyant Dadwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant / complainant, Mr.Lovnesh Kanwar, 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 and has erred in acquitting the …3… respondents. He has submitted that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has erred in not believing PW-2 and PW-3 on the ground that they are interested witnesses being relatives of the complainant. He has submitted that relation of the witness with the complainant in itself is no ground to disbelieve the witness. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted for acceptance of the appeal. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has properly appreciated the material on record. The complaint filed by the complainant is vague and the perusal of the complaint would show that PW-2 and PW-3 were not present on the spot at the time of alleged occurrence. 4. PW-1 Bimla Devi in her statement has stated that respondents gave her threat and uttered “RAND BADMAASH HAI ISAY JAAN SAY MAAR DENGE” on which she ran away from the place. Manoj Kumar came there with wooden stick and gave her beatings. Parkash Chand and Kuldip came there on hearing her cries and they saved her from the respondents. PW-2 Kuldip Chand has stated that respondents gave beatings to Bimla and they had uttered defamatory words to Bimla. Manoj Kumar had given beatings to Bimla. He has stated that both of them (PW-2 and PW-3) had come on scooter from Barsar which is at a distance of 50 kilometers from the village of the complainant. He has stated that there are about 50 houses in village Bari including 2 – 3 shops which are near to the house of the complainant. He has also stated that there are two shops opposite …4… the house of the complainant and the shops are at a distance of 15 – 20 feet. There were 1-2 women in the shops. PW-3 Parkash Chand has stated that when they reached the spot the respondents were pelting bricks and they were threatening the complainant. They also used defamatory words against Bimla. Manoj Kumar gave beatings to Bimla. He has stated that there are 30-40 houses in village Bari. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred some judgments on the point that relation of witnesses with the complainant in itself is no ground to discard their statements. There is no dispute to the proposition of law and, therefore, I am not referring those judgments. But the question in the present case is whether the statements of PW-2 and PW-3 inspire confidence in view of the facts which have come on record. 6. The complainant in her statement has stated that Parkash Chand and Kuldip came to the spot only after hearing her cries, it is thus clear that Parkash Chand and Kuldip are not the actual eye- witnesses of the incident. In the complaint she has not stated that her reputation was lowered due to the words uttered by the respondents. In the complaint she has also not stated that she was saved by Parkash Chand and Kuldip. In the complaint, she has stated that on seeing Parkash Chand and Kuldip, Manoj Kumar ran away but she has not stated so in her statement in the Court. She has not got herself examined by a doctor so as to seek opinion of the doctor regarding the beatings given by the respondents to her. She has stated that Parkash Chand and Kuldip are not related to her. She has …5… denied that Parkash is her real brother and Kuldip is her cousin being son of Mama. She has stated that she reported the matter to the police but police did not entertain her complaint but in her complaint she has stated nothing that she reported the matter to the police. PW-1 has not made it clear how Parkash Chand and Kuldip came on the spot. 7. Ext.DA is the copy of family register where Bimla Devi and Parkash Chand have been shown children of Ram Lal. PW-3 Parkash in his address as well as in his statement has admitted that he is the son of Ram Lal. Ext.DA indicates that Bimla Devi and Parkash Chand are real sister and brother but complainant Bimla Devi has denied that she is not the real sister of PW-3 Parkash Chand. It has come on record that village Bari has about 50 houses and even there are some shops opposite to the house of complainant Bimla Devi. At the time of alleged incident some women were in those shops but surprisingly no witness from the village have been examined by the complainant. PW-2 and PW-3 are chance witnesses and they allegedly came to the spot on that date after covering about 50 kilometers on scooter. Therefore, statements of PW-2 and PW-3 do not inspire confidence. No explanation has been given by the complainant why witnesses from the village Bari were not examined. There is no medical evidence on record to corroborate the statement of complainant that she was given beatings. The incident is of 25.2.1997 and the complaint was filed o n 27.2.1997. The delay has not been explained. It appears the complaint has been …6… filed after the deliberations. The complainant has stated that the complaint was made before the police but police did not entertain the complaint but there is no such averment in the complaint. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly appreciated the material on record and the view taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is possible which does not require any interference. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents are hereby discharged. July 23, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)