IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.379 of 2001. Judgment reserved on: 11.8.2008 Date of decision: 13.8.2008 State of H.P. …….Appellant Vs. Chamel Singh and others …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge. This appeal has been filed by State against the judgment dated 4.1.2001 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarkaghat in Police Challan No.190-II/98, acquitting respondents under Sections 147,148,323, 149 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that complainant PW-1 Kamla Devi and her family members on 19.7.1998 at about 4 P.M. were raising construction of their new house at village Kangu-ka- Gehra, her husband, son and daughters were also present on the spot. Beena and Pushpa daughters of the complainant had been brining water for filling the water tank, on the way accused Beena Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… Devi met and told them not to carry water through their land. It has also been alleged that accused Beena Devi started beating Beena daughter of the complainant with danda. PW-7 Roshan Lal husband of the complainant tried to intervene, PW-4 Rattan Chand son of the complainant also reached the spot. All accused persons appeared on the spot and gave beatings to PW-7 Roshan Lal husband, Rattan Chand, Rajesh Kumar sons and Beena as well as Pushpa daughters of complainant with stones and danda blows, as a result of which, they suffered injuries. The matter was reported to the police. PW-1 Kamla Devi, PW-6 Rajesh Kumar, PW-7 Roshan Lal were medically examined by the doctor, who found simple injuries on their person, during investigation recoveries were made and after completion of investigation the challan was presented in the Court. The accused were charged for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 149 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses. Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they pleaded their innocence. They examined Jaspal Singh MHC, who tendered in evidence Ex.DA. On completion of trial learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused, hence this appeal. 3. I have heard Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General for the appellant and Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar , learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and …3… has erred in acquitting the respondents. The prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted for setting aside the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that respondents were beaten by the complainant party and to this effect FIR No.166 of 1998 Ex.DA was registered on 25.7.1998 at Police Station, Sarkaghat. 4. PW-1 Kamla Devi complainant has stated that on 19.7.1998 at about 4 PM, they had been constructing a new house, her daughters Beena and Kushma had gone to the well for bringing water, both of them were coming with water, Beena accused No.5 placed a thorny bush to block the path and warned not to use the path. The daughters of the complainant told that it is an open passage for both the parties. Beena Devi accused, on this, gave beatings to her daughters Beena and Kushma with dandas. On hearing their cries Roshan Lal intervened, Beena Devi accused gave danda blows to Roshan Lal husband of the complainant. Later on Chamel Singh accused No.1 also came there and he also gave danda blows on the head of her husband and he fell down. In the meantime other accused also came there and they also gave beatings with dandas and by throwing stones. In the beginning they gave beatings to her son Rattan Chand. Thereafter, they gave blows on her head, lastly they gave beatings to her younger son Rajesh Kumar. They also gave beatings to her daughters. All of them suffered injuries. She remained in the Sarkaghat hospital for 25 days. …4… She reported the matter to the police. They were medically examined. She has stated that Manjit, Singh, Krishan Lal and Rikhi Ram masons were working on the spot. In cross-examination she has stated that at a distance of 5-7 yards there are several houses of the villagers. She has denied that complainant party had given beatings to accused. 5. PW-2 Mahtabi Devi independent witness has not supported the prosecution case. PW-3 Kushma Devi has supported the prosecution case. In her cross-examination she has admitted that at the instance of Chamel Singh one case is pending against them. PW-4 Rattan Chand has supported the prosecution case but in cross-examination he has admitted that his sisters were stopped by Beena. The incident was witnessed by two masons and Manjit. He has stated that at the instance of Chamel Singh one case is pending against them. PW-5 Maya Devi has stated that accused had given beatings to her father Roshan Lal. Chamel Singh and Beena Devi had given the beatings. In cross-examination she has stated that there are 15-16 houses in the village. PW-6 Rajesh Kumar has stated that Kaura Devi had hit him with a stone. PW-7 Roshan Lal has stated that Beena had given beatings to his daughters with dandas and when he intervened then he was also given beatings with dandas. Later on other accused also came on the spot. 6. It has come on record that Manjit Singh, Krishan Lal and Rikhi Ram were on the spot at the time of incident. It has also come on record that a case against the complainant party was also …5… registered regarding the same incident at the instance of the accused party. The relations between two parties are not good. It has also come on record that there are several houses in the village and incident allegedly took place just 5-7 yards from the village. PW-2 Mahtabi Devi only independent witness has not supported the prosecution case. PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 are from one family and are interested witnesses. In view of strained relations between the two parties, it is not safe to rely on these witnesses without corroboration by independent witnesses. The prosecution has not given any explanation why independent witnesses from the village were not associated during investigation and examined in the Court. PW-9 Dr. Ashok Chauhan who examined Rajesh Kumar, Rattan Lal and Kamla Devi has stated that all the injuries on the person of all the three injured are possible by fall. He has also examined Ashok Kumar son of Chamel Singh and issued MLC Ex.D-1 and found injury No.3 on his person as grievous. The grievous nature of the injuries on the person of the complainant party has not been proved in as much as PW-8 Dev Raj, Radiographer has stated that he has not conducted x-ray examination of complainant party. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has recorded a finding that charge against the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The view taken by the Court below is a possible view from the material on record. In appeal, unless the view taken by the trial Court is found to be perverse or otherwise not at all possible from the material on record then acquittal cannot be converted into …6… conviction merely on the ground that other view is also possible. The appellant has failed to make out a case that view taken by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate is perverse or is otherwise not at all possible from the material on record. No case for interference is made out. Resultantly, appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds discharged. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. August 13, 2008 (sks)