IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 2001. Judgement reserved on: 15.9.2008. Date of decision: September 19, 2008. State of H.P. ….. Appellant. Vs. Duni Chand & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocte General. For the Respondents : Mr. M.S.Chandel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocte. Kuldip Singh, Judge. This appeal has been directed against the judgement dated 25.11.2000 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur in case No. 25/1 of 1998 acquitting the respondents under Sections 323, 325 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that respondents on 8.11.1997 at about 6.30 p.m. at village Padyalag in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant Rattan Singh and also caused simple hurt to him. The matter was reported to police vide rapat No. 13 dated 10.11.1997 and then FIR No. 84/97 was registered on 23.11.1997 at Police Station, Bharari. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… The police visited the spot and prepared site plan Ex. PW 9/A. The complainant was got medically examined vide MLC Ex. PW 5/A and radiological report Ex. PW 8/A was obtained. The statements of witnesses were recorded, on conclusion of investigation, challan was presented in the court against the respondents, who were charged under Sections 323, 325 and 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, the respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they pleaded their innocence. The respondents did not lead any evidence in defence. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on conclusion of the trial acquitted the respondents, hence appeal by the State. 3. I have heard Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the appellant, Mr. M.S. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Dinesh Thaur, Advocate, for the respondents and gone through the record. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has not properly appreciated the material on record. The complainant was beaten by the respondent, which fact has been proved by oral and documentary evidence on record as well as MLC Ex. PW 5/A and radiological report Ex. PW 8/A. He has submitted that prosecution has proved the case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. On behalf of the respondents Mr. M.S.Chandel, learned Senior Advocate has supported the impugned judgement and has submitted that learned trial Magistrate has properly appreciated the material on record and no fault can be found with the …3… judgement of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. 4. PW 1 Rattan Lal reported the matter to the police vide Ex. PW 1/A at about 4.15 p.m. on 10.11.1997. He has stated that on 8.11.1997 at about 6.30 or 6.45 p.m., he had given beatings by Ram Chand, Duni Chand and Joginder Pal with fist and kick blows. Ram Chand gave Danda blows on his person. He was rescued by Jatu Ram, Pamu and Burfi Devi. PW 1 in his statement in the court has has stated that accused asked him to bring liquor, but he refused, on this accused gave him beatings with kick and fist blows. He raised alarm but non came. Thereafter Burfi Devi, Santokha, Piar Singh and Kaku came on the spot and on seeing them accused ran away from the spot. The incident was witnessed by his children Rakesh and Sunil. On the next day, he was unconscious and he reported the matter to the police on the third day vide rapat Ex. PW 1/A. 5. PW 2 Rakesh Kumar is the son of the complainant and he has supported the complainant. PW 3 Santokha is the father of PW 1 complainant. He has stated hat on hearing the cries, he went to the spot and Burfi also came there. Pamu and Jatu also came there. The accused had fled away from the spot, his son told him that there were three accused. PW 4 Piar Chand has not supported the prosecution and he was declared hostile, but in the cross examination conducted by prosecution, nothing favourable to the prosecution was extracted. In the cross examination conducted on behalf of the accused, he has stated that Rattan had fall on the bricks and sustained injuries. PW 5 Dr. Sangeet Dhillon examined Rattan Lal on …4… 10.11.1997 at about 5.00 p.m. and issued MLC Ex. PW 5/A. PW 5 has stated that injuries mentioned in Ex. PW 5/A could be caused due to fall. PW 6 has proved rapat No. 13 Ex. PW 1/A. PW 7 Burfi Devi has stated that sons of Ratnu started weeping and told that their father had been given beatings. On this, she went to the spot and saw that accused Ram Chand and Duni Chand were giving beatings and on seeing her, they left the place. In cross examination, she has stated that children of complainant had told her that their father had been given beatings. PW 8 Smt. Sudha Parkash has proved opinion Ex. PW 8/A after radiological examination. PW 9 Anjani Kumar is the Investigating Officer. 6. The alleged occurrence took place at about 6.30 p.m. on 8.11.1997, but rapat Ex. PW 1/A was made by PW 1 on 10.11.1997 at 4.15 p.m. In Ex. PW 1/A, he has not explained the delay in approaching the police on 10.11.1997 even though occurrence took place on 8.11.1997. In his statement in the court, he has stated that on the next date of the occurrence, he was unconscious and therefore he reported the matter on the third day. There is no such whisper in rapat Ex. PW 1/A nor in MLC Ex. PW 5/A that PW 1 remained unconscious after the incident. The delay in reporting the matter to the police has not been explained by the complainant. It appears that he reported the matter to the police after deliberations. Therefore, rapat Ex. PW 1/A cannot be relied. 7. In rapat Ex. PW 1/A, the complainant has stated that Jatu Ram, Pamu Ram and Burfi Devi rescued him from the clutches of the accused. In the rapat, he has not stated that his children …5… Rakesh and Sunil were on the spot. In his statement in the court, the complainant has stated that he raised alarm when beatings were given to him but none came. He has further stated that later on Burfi, Santokha, Piar Singh and Kaku came there. Burfi Devi and Santokha are none-else but the parents of the complainant. PW 4 Piar Chand has not supported the prosecution case, even PW 3 Santokha is also not an eye witness of the occurrence. PW 7 Burfi Devi has named only two accused namely Ram Chand, Duni Chand and she has not named third accused Joginder Pal for giving beatings to the complainant. She has stated that when the children of complainant told her in the house that their father had been given beatings then she went to the spot. In other words, she also cannot be said to be an eye witness as she came to the spot much after the incident. PW 1 complainant in his statement has stated that accused asked him to bring liquor which he refused and they gave him beatings, but it is not so stated by him in his rapat Ex. PW 1/A. PW 5 Dr. Sangeet Dhillon has stated that injuries mentioned in Ex. PW 5/A can be caused by fall. PW 4 Piar Chand has stated that complainant had fallen on the bricks and he sustained injuries. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly appreciated the material on record. The view taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate emerges from the evidence which has come on record. No case for interference has been made out. 8. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed, bail bonds of respondents are discharged. September 19, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.