IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 569 of 2003 Date of decision: 18.08.2010 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Bhagwan Singh and others … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Pawan Gautam and Mr. Vijay Bhatia, Advocates, for respondents No. 2 to 4. Respondent No. 1 dead. V.K. Ahuja , J. : This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kangra, dated 30.7.2003, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 452, 325 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 14.1.1995, at about 2.15 P.M., a statement was made by Ajudhya Devi before a police officer that she was present in her house today at about 12.00 noon alone and Joginder, Surinder and Rania entered her house. Joginder caught hold of her and gave a blow over her nose 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 and also started giving beatings with legs. Surinder and Rania also started giving beatings to her and dragged her outside in the courtyard. She raised an alarm and Amar Singh and Ravinder came to the spot, who rescued her. She further stated that in the meanwhile, Bhagwan Singh came with danda, who was caught by the persons present there. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondents for the sections mentioned above, leading to their acquittal. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. A perusal of the statement of the complainant who was examined as PW-1, shows that she had attributed one injury to Joginder, who had given the blow over her nose. She only stated that Surinder and Rania also gave her beatings but she did not state over which part of the body or how many injuries were given or whether these were given with some weapon. She only named Amar Singh and Ravinder having reached the spot. Thereafter, she alleged that Bhagwan Singh entered alongwith a danda and she was rescued by Ved Prakash, about which there were no allegations in the statement made to the police. However, she was not confronted with the complaint lodged by her. 5. PW-2 Amar Singh has stated that he does not know the names of two nephews of Rania, but he can identify them. However, he did not identify them in Court also. He further stated that they had met him on the way and proceeded towards their house and after some time when he learnt that a quarrel was taking place 3 with Ajudhya Devi. He went there and blood was oozing out from her nose and mouth. He has not stated as to who gave blow on her nose and mouth. He further stated that the nephews of Rania were giving beatings to Ajudhya Devi and Bhagwan Dass was also standing outside with a danda. He snatched the danda from Bhagwan Dass, about which the complainant had not stated. Thus, it is clear that the main injury which was proved to be grievous injury as per the medical evidence has not been attributed to any person by him and the same was not inflicted in his presence. In further cross- examination, he has stated that other ladies were also present there, whose number was about 25-20, which fact was not stated by the complainant. He also stated that the blows were inflicted by the nephews of Rania upon the person of the complainant, but he also did not state that how many blows were given and over which part of the body. He as well as the complainant had denied that the accused persons suffered any injury at that time. 6. PW-6 the other eye witness examined by the prosecution, namely, Ravinder Kumar, has stated that he heard a noise and went there and found that blood was oozing out of the nose of Ajudhya Devi and 2-3 persons were giving beatings to her. Out of them, two are present and he can identify them. He did not state that injury on the person of Ajudhya Devi was inflicted by Joginder in his presence and has also not stated about the injuries inflicted by other two accused persons on the person of the complainant. Therefore, he does not corroborate the testimony of the complainant on material particulars. 4 7. He admits in cross-examination that the accused persons had also suffered injuries at that time. This fact was also admitted by PW-9 Investigating Officer, namely, Daulat Ram, that the accused persons had also suffered injuries at that time and he had sent them for medical examination, though he had not filed any challan. In regard to those injuries. The accused proved in evidence MLCs Ext.DW1/A to DW1/D, in regard to their medical examination, in which all the accused persons had suffered simple injuries except accused Joginder who had suffered grievous injury as per MLC Ext. DW1/A.The date and time of examination tallies and they were also examined on the same day at about 7.00 P.M. or so, while the complainant was examined on 14.1.1995 at 4.30 P.M. 8. It is clear from the above discussion that the complainant and PW-2 Amar Singh had denied that the accused persons received any injury at that time, which fact was admitted by PW-6 Ravinder Kumar and PW-9 Daulat Ram, Investigating Officer and the medical certificates have also been proved from the statement of DW-1 V.K. Mahajan. In such circumstances, when the genesis of the occurrence is not known as to how the quarrel started and the injuries on the person of the accused party have not been explained by the prosecution which also includes grievous injury on the person of one of the accused. The case of the prosecution cannot be said to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt, so as to hold who was aggressor or who started the quarrel and as to whether the complainant suffered injuries in the manner stated by her. 9. It has come up in the cross-examination of PW-1 Smt. Ajudhya Devi and it was suggested to her that a complaint was made 5 to her in regard to the behaviour of her son that he teases the daughter of one of the accused persons, which fact was though denied by her, but this could be the genesis of the occurrence. 10. The final verdict recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt, cannot be said to be perverse, calling for an interference by this Court, in view of the evidence led by the prosecution. 11. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents No. 2 to 4 shall stand discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ), August 18, 2010 Judge (BSS) 6