IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 328/2003 Date of decision: 18. 8. 2010 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Yash Paul & Ors. ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the Appellant: Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 342, 506 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, passed by the learned trial court in Criminal Case No. 73-II/2001/94. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General vehemently argued that the statements of the injured witnesses which stand duly corroborated by the medical 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - evidence and other independent witnesses, was wrongly disbelieved by the learned trial Court. 3. On the other hand, Shri N.K. Thakur, Advocate for the respondents supported the impugned judgment of acquittal. 4. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it shall be relevant to narrate the facts in brief. 5. Parties belong to one family and there is a dispute over the possession of land between the accused on one hand and the complainant on the other hand. PW1 Baldev Singh was a class-IV employee and his brother PW4 Parkash Chand a Pharmacist in Primary Health Centre, Chintpurni. 6. On 1st October, 1992 there was a hearing of a land dispute before the Assistant Land Consolidation Officer, Bharwain.In the evening when they returned from their duties, at about 6 p.m., no sooner did they reach the court-yard of their house, respondent Yash Pal and Asha came armed with Lathis and Rajo Devi their mother having a sickle in her hand are - 3 - alleged to have attacked Baldev Singh and Parkash Chand aforesaid. 7. Respondent yash Pal is alleged to have given lathi blows to them whereas Rajo Devi caused sharp injury to PW1 Baldev Singh with darati. Thereafter said respondent dragged Parkash Chand to their room and locked him inside. Key was kept by respondent Rajo Devi and other respondents fled-away from the spot. 8. PW2 Anju Verma daughter of Parkash Chand (PW4) went to Chintpurni, informed PW9 Ram Krishan, PW8 Janarak Raj and Narinder (not examined). They came to the spot in two Metadoor vehicles, took the key from Smt. Rajo Devi and released PW1 Baldev. Thereafter they removed both the injured to the Hospital. Doctor informed the police about the injured having been brought to the hospital for their treatment. 9. One party of the police rushed to the spot and another went to the Hospital. SHO Sanjeev Lakhanpal (PW17) after obtaining the certificate of fitness from the doctor, recorded the statement Ext. PW1/A of Baldev Singh under Section 154 of - 4 - the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of which FIR under the aforesaid Sections was registered. 10. ASI Feru Ram (PW15) visited the spot and prepared the site plan Ext. PW15/A of the place of incident and on 2.10.1992 got medically examined PW2 Anju Verma and PW3 Maya Devi 11. On examination of the injured Baldev, Anju and Maya, doctor noticed the simple injuries on their person however, as per X-ray report of Parkash Chand, there were fractures in 8th and 9th rib of the right side of the chest as such injury No. 1 was found grievous. 12. Police converted the case for attempted murder under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and also recovered Danda Ext.P2, belu Ext. P3 and Darati Ext. P4, alleged weapon of offence. 13. On the completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the court for the trial of the respondents. 14. Since challan was under Section 307 Indian Penal Code along with other Sections, it was committed to the court of - 5 - Sessions. Charges under Section 307, 342, 323, 506 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code were framed, against which the revision was filed by the respondents and vide judgment dated 27.10.1995 passed in Criminal Revision No. 41 of 1995, this Court modified the order dropping Charge under Section 307 Indian Penal code. Accordingly case was sent for its trial to the Judicial Magistrate concerned. 15. Finding a prima facie case charge under section 325, 342, 506 read with Section 34 Indian Penal code was framed against the respondents. They pleaded not guilty and claim trial. 16. Prosecution examined its witnesses and respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They pleaded their innocence and alleged a false implication. Respondents did not lead any evidence in defence. 17. The learned trial Court found material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses as such acquitted the respondents by giving them the benefit of doubt. - 6 - 18. Both the parties are neighbour, and belongs to one family. Pertinently, complainant in his statement recorded by the police did not make any reference with respect to the consolidation case pending inter se parties on the day of the alleged incident. As already noticed above, in the complaint he stated that he along with his brother were returning home after attending their; when they reached in their court-yard, they were attacked by the respondents. As PW1 he gave reference to the date of hearing of the case on the said date before the Assistant Compensation Officer. Contrary to the above statement PW4 Prakash Chand stated that when he asked about giving beatings to his brother and it was then he was also attacked. 19. PW1 further stated that after giving beatings his brother was dragged by respondents to their room and locked him inside. Key was handed over by them to their mother Rajo Devi later he was rescued by PW8 Janak Ran, Surinder, Pradeep, Narinder and Madan but did not name PW9 Ram Krishan. - 7 - 20. Having gone through the testimony of PW8 Janak Raj, I do not find any corroboration to this fact. He is only the witness to the recovery of alleged weapon of offence. Even PW9 Ram Krishan did not say that he was informed by PW2 Anju Verma about the alleged incident. He merely stated that at about 5.30 p.m. daughter- in-law of Parkash came to him and informed about the incident. Whereas the incident is alleged to have taken place around 6 p.m. and this witness was in Chintpurni which is admittedly at a distance of one and a half K.m. from the place of incident. He further stated that when he reached the spot, yashpal respondent and his mother Rajo Devi both were present there on the spot which goes contrary to the prosecution case that they had fled- away after the incident. He stated that Prakash was inside but he also did not say anything about the demanding of key from Rajo Devi and unlocking the door of the room where Parksah Chand was allegedly confined. 21. Although the lock was taken into possession by the police but there is no - 8 - explanation about the key. Had the aforesaid PW unlocked the premises, the key must have been in his possession which was not produced to corroborate the prosecution case. 22. PW1 baldev Singh and PW4 Parkash Chand both have stated that they were attacked by the respondents but they did not say anything about the presence of PW2 Anju Verma and PW3 Maya Devi and also of giving beatings to them. 23. Pertinently, PW4 also stated that when he reached the spot along with his brother, respondents were giving beatings to his sister-in-law Bimla Devi. Neither this fact find mention in the FIR nor it has been so stated by PW1 Baldev Singh and there is also no medical report to this effect that Bimla had also sustained injuries in this incident. 24. Further PW2 Anju Verma is daughter of Parkash Chand (PW4). She has been examined as an eye witness but she did not say about the incident having taken place on 1.10.1992 rather she stated that it was on 2.10.1992 that after hearing of the case, her father and uncle - 9 - both while returning home were given bearings by the respondents when she tried to intervene she was also given bearings. This was a new story introduced by her which is not even supported by PW1 and PW2. She further stated that thereafter Parkash Chand was locked into the room, she went to Chintpurni and informed Janak Raj and others who relieved him from their clutches but did not chose to inform the neighbour and any other member of the villages which fell on the way. 25. PW3 Maya Devi is the wife of Parkash Chand. She also made the similar statement to that of PW2 whereas Parkash Chand aforesaid did not whisper even a single word about their presence when the alleged incident had taken place. Neither PW8 nor PW9 have stated that they were informed about the incident by Anju Verma aforesaid. 26. Although some simple injuries were found on the examination of PW Anju Verma and Maya on 2.10.1992 by the doctors but from the critical examination of their evidence aforesaid it is not relatable to the incident in question nor it has been - 10 - corroborated by any circumstance. Further with respect to the grievous hurt alleged to have sustained by Parkash Chand, Radiologist has not been examined nor the report with respect to the injury was connected with any of the X-ray on the record. Even Parkash Chand did not say about having sustained the fracture of his ribs. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a case even under Section 325 Indian Penal Code. 27. Further, I also find that PW1 Baldev Singh has stated that he was hit by sickle by Smt. Rajo Devi but perusal of his medico legal certificate does not find mention of the sharp injury on his person which also causes a dent on the authenticity of the prosecution case. 28. Recovery of the alleged weapons are not connected with any of the injuries aforesaid. Hence the case also lacks corroboration. 29. The aforesaid facts were taken note of by the learned trial Court which are borne out from the evidence on record. Thus the impugned judgment of acquittal cannot be said to be perverse as such the - 11 - conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court is reasonable from the evidence on record which does not call for any interference. The appeal is without any merit hence dismissed. 30. The bonds entered upon by the respondents at any stage during the trial of this case are ordered to be discharged. August 18, 2010 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)