IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 197/2005 Date of decision: 03.11.2011 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Sagar Chand and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr. A.K. Bansal Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) The challenge in this appeal is by the State to the acquittal of the respondents recorded by the learned trial Court in criminal case No. 13/2 of 2004/2003 decided on 25.2.2005, under Sections 341, 323, 325 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. Hence the present appeal. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. PW2 Prem Lata is the complainant in this case. According to her on 15.6.2003, around 8.45 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - p.m. she was going to Bazar to make some purchases. On the way, respondent Sagar Chand dragged her dupatta. She stopped, her brother-in- law Neel Kanth was just passing by while coming from the service station where he was working. He asked the reason from the respondent as to why dupatta of the complainant was dragged. On this, respondents started beating him but complainant intervened and relieved him from the clutches of the respondents. Thereafter PW3 Anil Kumar came to the spot. He is also the brother-in-law of complainant. Respondent Sagar Chand dealt a danda blow on his head and he fainted. On her raising cry, another brother-in-law of complainant Vijay Kumar came to spot thus there was a scuffle between them. The injured were got medically examined and a report was lodged. Police also took into possession danda Ext. P1. 4. The whole set of prosecution evidence consist of close relatives whereas the defence taken is that respondent Chetan was working as dentor/helper with the complainant party. They owed his ¾ months salary which was not paid, thus he along with other respondents went to them and - 3 - raised a demand, which annoyed them and gave bearing to them and lodged a false FIR. 5. In cross examination, the complainant admitted that her husband was a constable in the police department and was sitting in the Court when she was examined as a witness. She also stated that the incident took place about 15 feet short of distance from the shop of Sunil Kumar where she intended to make purchases. She admitted that it was a thickly populated area. When confronted with the report made by her to the police, the fact of dragging dupatta did not find mention. There was also no mention with respect to giving danda blow to Vijay Kumar and falling unconscious. She also admitted that Prem Chand father of accused Sagar Chand his sister Shalu brother-in-law Manoj Kumar and Ajay Kumar were present on the spot. It is notable from her statement that she maternally exaggerated her version of her own saying that all these persons had pelted stones upon her. But when confronted with the report to which she made to the police, this fact was also not found mentioned. However, she admitted that respondent Chetan Kumar was working as a servant with her but denied that he was terminated from his service thus - 4 - he along with other respondents approached them to pay his salary, on this, she started hurling abuses to them with the result many persons, namely, Anita, Sanjay and Vijay came there and started beating the respondents. Anil Kumar and Vijay Kumar also joined them and scuffled with the respondents. 6. PW3 Anil Kumar also admitted that Chetan respondent was working as a dentor/helper with him but he denied that he was to pay his past four months salary. He stated that he was informed by Sanjay Kumar that few persons were teasing his sister-in-law. When he went to the spot, respondent Sagar Chand dealt a danda blow on his head and became unconscious, from there he was removed to the hospital and regained his senses there only. He did not know whether his brother Vijay Kumar had also reached the spot. Thus, he was declared hostile and when confronted with his statement, he admitted that Vijay Kumar had also visited the spot whereas PW4 Vijay Kumar stated that Anil Kumar had already reached the spot before his arrival. Thus, both these statements are contradictory to each other and irreconcilable. The said incident is stated to have taken place at a distance of about 18/19 meters away from the police post which, - 5 - according to this witness, takes only 5-7 minutes to reach there. He also stated that when he reached police station, there was no one. He stated that he parked his motor cycle at some distance and he saw that some abusive and hot language was being exchanged between the family of the complainant and the respondents. 7. PW5 Sanjay Kumar is the brother of Anil Kumar. He stated that when the complainant was going to the market, she was restrained by the respondents and he went nearer to the place. On this, respondents started abusing him. Thereafter he went to the shop of his brother Anil Kumar and made complaint to him. He admitted that respondent Chetan was a dentor/ helper with them but denied that they had to make payment of his salary and when he demanded it, the complainant started abusing him. 8. PW1 Dr. Sushil P. Vermani had examined the injured and issued medico legal certificate wherein the time of sustaining injury does not co- relate with the alleged incident. 9. PW9 HC Balbir Singh admitted that the husband of the complainant was working in the - 6 - police department though he denied that a false case was registered at his instance. 10. On the scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence, it is apparent that there is a background of some ill- will and animosity inter se the parties and an important fact also emerges that Chetan Kumar respondent was working as helper/dentor with the complainant party for the last about 3-4 months and the defence of the accused is that the complainant party were to make the payment of his salary, when he went there with the respondent and raised demand, the complainant party became aggressive and used abusive language. The complainant and her brother-in-laws started scuffling with them. The police post was also at the distance of a stones throw from the spot of the incident. No commotion was noticed by the police in the vicinity. It was a thickly populated area. No independent witness is there. The statement of the prosecution witnesses are not coinciding with each other but one way or the other it stood contradicted. The shop of one Sunil Kumar was also nearby who normally would have noticed the said incident and could have been a relevant and independent witness to throw some light on the probity of prosecution case. The - 7 - statements of the prosecution witnesses are not free from doubt. Therefore, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are borne out from the record therefore, require no interference. 11. The appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. 12. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them, at any time during the proceedings of this case. November 3, 2011 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge.