IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.Appeal No. 636 of 2001. Decided on: 11.8.2008. ________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. … Appellant. Versus Om Prakash and others. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathor, Dy.A.G. For the Respondents: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. ________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The respondents were prosecuted in criminal case No. 62- II/99/98 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dharamshala under Sections 451, 323, 325, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were acquitted by the learned trial Court on 26.7.2001. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 26.7.2001. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that on the evening of 8.4.1997 around 6:00-6:30 p.m. accused Om Parkash all of a sudden entered into the courtyard of complainant 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Jugni Devi in druken state and started calling Smt. Sito Devi, daughter in law of complainant, who was sweeping in the courtyard. He intended to catch and drag Smt. Sito Devi out of the courtyard. In the meantime, the complainant raised noise and rescued her daughter in law from the clutches of the accused. Thereafter, accused left the place. The respondents after conspiring and in connivance with each other in furtherance of their common intention again forcibly entered into the house of complainant without her permission and started beating her. Accused Ram Devi pushed down the complainant on the earth and started pulling her hairs. Accused Ramu and Shyamu kicked her and gave her fist blows on her shoulder. Sito Devi, daughter in law of complainant and Arjun son of the complainant tried to rescue their mother. They were over-powered by accused Om Parkash, Ramu and Shyamu. In this scuffle, Sito Devi received injuries on her head. The leg of Arjun was also fractured. The matter was reported to the police. The police did not register first information report initially. The complainant filed a written complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala on 18.4.1997. The complaint Ext. PW1/A was sent to the S.H.O., Police Station, Dharamshala for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, F.I.R. Ext. PW5/A was registered. The case was investigated and the challan was put up. The prosecution has produced six witnesses to prove its case. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial Court acquitted the respondents on 26.7.2001. 3 The learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case and the judgment dated 26.7.2001 is liable to be set aside. Mr. Romesh Verma, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment dated 26.7.2001. I have heard the parties and have gone through the record carefully. PW1-Jugni Devi has deposed on oath that about two years back around 7:00 p.m. the accused Om Parkash came to her house and started asking her son-Arjun to come out and at that time, her daughter in law was sweeping the courtyard. He caught hold of her daughter in law and all the accused persons started beating her. He also testified that the accused had started beating her son-Arjun and daughter in law-Sito Devi. PW2-Sito Devi has supported the case of the prosecution by deposing that on the evening of 8.4.1997 her husband-Arjun was beaten by accused persons, Ram Singh, Shyam Singh and Om Parkash. The accused persons threw her husband on the ground due to which his leg was fractured. She was given beatings by the accused. PW3-Arjun Singh has testified that on the evening of 8.4.1997 at about 6:00-7:00 p.m., all the accused persons entered into his house and threw him on the stones due to which his leg was fractured. PW4-Dr. J.R. Azad proved the x-ray report Ext. PW4/A and x-ray film Ext.PW4/B. He found fracture of leg of Arjun Singh in the x-ray. There are material contradictions in the written complaint Ext.PW1/A and the Rapat Ext.PW6/A. As per Rapat Ext. PW6/A, incident had taken place on 8.4.1997 at about 6:00-6:30 p.m. 4 However, it has not been disclosed in this Rapat that the accused have ever given beatings to complainant-Jugni Devi. In Ext.PW1/A written complaint filed by complainant-Jugni Devi before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, she has stated that all the accused had given beatings to her and she sustained injuries. As noticed above, this fact has not been mentioned in the Rapat Ext.PW6/A. PW2-Sito Devi has also not stated in her statement that accused had given beatings to her mother in law. PW1-Jugni Devi has deposed that the accused had given beatings to her. The prosecution has failed to examine the Medical Officer, who has examined the injured Arjun Singh and Sito Devi. There are contradictions in the statements of PWs. There are discrepancies in the Rapat Ext.PW6/A and the written complaint Ext.PW1/A. The Doctor, who has examined the injured, has not been examined. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds/surety bonds are discharged. (Rajiv Sharma), J. August 11, 2008. (cr)