IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.485 of 2003 Date of decision: 03.06.2010 State of Himachal Pradesh. Appellant Versus Bachittar Singh & others. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S.Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General. For the respondents: Ms.Vidushi Sharma, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja, J(Oral). This is an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class (II), Hamirpur, dated 31.3.2003, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 147,148,149/451,452/325,323/506 IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 4.10.1996 a report was lodged with the police by one Gian Singh that on the previous day he was present in his house and at about 8.30 P.M. respondents came to his house in furtherance of their common intention having Drats and Lathis and started giving beatings to him in the verandah of his house. He suffered injuries on his head, left arm, left hand and he fell down and became unconscious. His brother Amar Singh came to rescue him who Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 was also inflicted blows by the respondents and on hearing his cries several persons came to the spot and had seen the occurrence. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, challan was filed against the respondents before the learned trial Court who tried the respondents as detailed above, leading to their acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the statement made by the complainant it is clear that one of the respondents is his son and one is his son’s wife and there is a dispute in between the complainant and his son and his wife since he has willed away his property in favour of other persons excluding his son Binder Singh respondent No.2. 5. In the report lodged with the police he had alleged that the respondent had entered his house but in the Court he stated that the occurrence took place in the verandah of his house. A perusal of the statement of the complainant shows that he had named eight persons and had also stated that other persons were also there but he could not see them in the dark, therefore, the identity of the other persons was not established as to who were the participants in the commission of the offence. He had also stated that his brother Amar Singh, his wife and his son’s wife were also present there who had seen the occurrence. He did not state in his statement as to which of the accused persons gave injuries with Drat or sticks or on which particular portion these were inflicted. He clearly stated that since it was dark, he could not notice as to who was having the Lathis and Drafts and he stated in cross examination that he cannot state which of the respondents had 3 inflicted blows on which part of his body. He stated that many persons had gathered who had seen the occurrence. 6. PW-2 Sunita Kumari, daughter-in-law of the brother of the complainant, had also stated that she went to the spot on hearing cries and stated that her husband and mother-in-law were present at the spot and her uncle was also lying on the ground at the spot having suffered injuries. She stated that respondents were having sticks and drat in their hands but she did not state as to which of the respondents inflicted the injuries. She also stated that her father-in-law Amar Singh and mother-in-law also suffered injuries. 7. PW-3 Pawan Kumar, when examined, has stated that he reached the spot when the injuries had already been inflicted. PW- 5 Amar Singh, the brother of the complainant who is also stated to have suffered injuries at that time has stated that when he came to the spot, on inquiry he learnt that a quarrel had taken place and Gian Singh, Amar Singh and the ladies had suffered injuries but he did not state that the injuries were inflicted in his presence. PW-6 Shri Harnam Singh has also stated that he reached the spot after the quarrel had taken place. PW-7 Ramesh Chand also admits that he had not seen the occurrence and the injuries were not inflicted in his presence. 8. Apart from the above, it is also in evidence of PW-11 Dr. Rajinder Kumar that he examined some of the injured and observed the injuries on their person. He also stated that he had also examined Sunil Kumar, one of the respondents and observed that he was having three abrasions and was also having other injuries. He also examined Amar Singh and found injuries on his person but when said Amar Singh appeared in the witness box, he 4 did not state about the injuries on his person. He had also examined Anita Devi and found injuries on her person and Anita Devi is one of the respondents. 9. It is, therefore, clear that the accused party had also suffered number of injuries at that time which have not been explained by the prosecution and as such, it cannot be said as to who were the aggressors. There is nothing at all in the statement of the prosecution witnesses that the respondents also suffered injuries and, therefore, their statements become doubtful. 10. The statement of PW-11 Dr. Rajinder Kumar also does not corroborate the statement of the complainant. As per his version, the injuries were simple having been caused by blunt weapon but did not state that these were possible with the Drat or sticks and, therefore, the medical version does not support the prosecution case fully. 11. In view of the above contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and also in view of the fact that the medical version does not support the prosecution case, the final conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court in acquitting the respondent cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 12. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds stand discharged. 3rd June, 2010 (V.K.Ahuja),J. (sds)