1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 517 of 2001. Decided on: July 03, 2008 ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Kanshi Ram. ……..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondent : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral): The instant appeal has been filed by the State, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court, in criminal case No. 345/2 of 95, decided on 22.1.2001. Precisely, the case of the prosecution against the respondent has been that on 5.9.1995 at about 1.30 p.m. at Gan- ki-Ser, PW1 Gurmukh Singh was leveling his field to tether his buffalo. Respondent came there under the influence of liquor and hit the complainant with a stone Ex.P1, on the lower portion of his chest. Respondent hurled the filthy language to him and threatened him with dire consequences. The incident aforesaid was allegedly witnessed by PW2 Prem Singh and PW6 Kamla Devi. The complainant went to the Advocate on the same day, drafted a complaint Ex.PW1/A and handed it over to the SHO, Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Police Station Solan, which was recorded in the daily diary. The complainant was medically examined by PW3 Dr. S.L. Verma on the same day at about 8.15 p.m. There was also a lacerated wound on the side of the chest. He was referred for the X-ray. It revealed the fracture of 7th and 9th ribs and the injury was opined to be grievous in nature. To this effect, the Medico Legal Certificate Ex.PW3/A was issued. PW7 Jeet Singh ASI visited the spot and prepared the site plan Ex.PW7/A. The complainant produced the stone Ex.P1, by which he was hit. It was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/B. After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented against the respondent in the trial court under Section 325 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution led its evidence and put reliance on the statements of the injured PW1 Gurmukh Singh, PW2 Prem Singh, PW6 Kamla Devi and also the medical evidence. Statement of the respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. The respondent denied the allegations against him in the form of circumstances put to him. He did not lead any evidence, but his defence was that the complainant sustained the injuries on account of fall. After appreciating the evidence, at the end of trial, the respondent was acquitted by the trial court, on the grounds that there were contradictory evidence with respect to the alleged 3 incident, delay in lodging the FIR, material contradictions in the depositions made by the complainant and his witnesses. Further that PW2 Prem Singh stated about a scuffle inter-se the complainant and the respondent which fact is denied by the complainant. The varied versions of the witnesses raised a doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution case. Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer has submitted that the learned trial court did not rightly appreciate the evidence on record and had set the unrealistic standard to evaluate the direct and cogent evidence and it discarded the testimony of the witnesses on untenable grounds. Minor contradictions occurring in the statement of the complainant aged about 63 years was given much weight. The case against the respondent stood proved on the evidence on record. Shri Romesh Verma, learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings of the learned trial court for acquitting the respondents and further highlighted the material contradictions in the statements of the prosecutions witnesses which rendered the prosecution case highly doubtful. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties in the light of the evidence on record. On the reappraisal of the entire evidence led on record, I do not find the consistency therein. According to the complainant (PW1) Gurmukh Singh, he was hit by the respondent with a stone around 11/12 O’clock, which caused the fracture of his ribs, when he was tethering his buffalo. The occurrence was witnessed by 4 PW2 Prem Singh. He had kept the stone in his house and handed over the same to the police on their visit the spot on the sixth day, whereas, in his complaint, he has mentioned the time of incident as 1.30 p.m. PW2 Prem Singh has stated that at 3-4 p.m. he was taking the rest he heard the noise and came out from his room and saw that the complainant and the respondent were scuffling. He had intervened and separated them. No other person was present there. In his cross-examination, he simply stated that both were scuffling at that time as stated above. PW6 Kamla Devi gave contrary version to that of the complainant that the respondent pelted many stones on the complainant. She also introduced PW5 Nand Lal as an eye witness but he did not say anything about the occurrence. According to him, he was witness to the recovery of the stone. Kamla Devi is the tenant of the complainant. She also stated in her cross-examination that only one stone was hit by the respondent to the complainant which caused the injury on the nose, foot, waist and stomach and lot of blood came out, which cannot be true that one blow of stone can cause different injuries on different parts of body, nor such injuries were found by the Doctor on the body of the complainant. She further stated that on the day of alleged incident, PW2 Prem Singh was present with her in the compound and was washing his hands and mouth at the time of alleged incident, which is totally juxta opposite to the statement of Prem Singh. Thus, there are exaggeration, embellishment, contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements aforesaid. On 5 the top of it, there is also a contradiction about the recovery of the stone. The complainant has stated that he had kept a stone by which he was hit by the respondent and produced it to the police on their arrival on the sixth day, whereas PW5 Nand Lal has stated that the police took into possession the said stone from the spot, whereas, a perusal of the said memo Ex.PW1/B shows that the stone was produced by the accused himself. Further the stone in question was not shown to the Doctor in order to extract his opinion whether the injury in question can be caused by the stone so taken into possession to corroborate the version of the complainant. If there was a scuffle as stated by PW2 Prem Singh then it is not known who was the aggressor. Therefore, in these circumstances, a reasonable doubt is created regarding the involvement of the respondent in the alleged offence in the manner deposed by the complainant. Thus, the evidence of the prosecution was rightly rejected by the learned trial court. On the re-examination of the evidence, I do not find any perversity in the findings of the acquittal recorded by the trial court. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh), Judge. July 03, 2008. (Pds)