Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.688 of 2008. Dated of Decision: 20.12.2010. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Radhey Shayam ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General . For the Respondents : Mr. Ashish Sharma, Amicus Curie. Surinder Singh,J (oral) : The respondent was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 325 by the learned Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 85-1/2008/155-II/2008 decided on 15.7.2008 which has been challenged by the State in this appeal. 2. In short, prosecution case can be stated thus. On 27 February, 2008 at about 4.00 PM the respondent was a worker in “Ram Temple” at Manikaran. He was confronted by complainant Sobha Ram, a drum beater of the temple. The respondent allegedly used provocative language and picked up a wooden plank and dealt a blow on the face of the complaint with the result he fell down and sustained injuries. Jagdish Sharma and Shayam Lal, who were present nearby, intervened and saved the complainant from the clutches of the respondent. Since the complainant had sustained injuries, he was removed to CHC, Manikaran for treatment and the matter was reported to the police. The police recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which culminated into the present FIR. - 2 - 3. The medical examination of the complainant was conducted by PW5 Dr. Rituvesh Negi. He noticed seven injuries on the different parts of the body of the complainant and qua injury No.5 which was a swelling of left lower leg, he was referred for the x-ray examination. The x-ray examination was conducted and PW9 Dr. M.L. Bandhu of Regional Hospital, Kullu opined that there was fracture of left fibula, thus grievous whereas other injuries were opined to be simple in nature. 4. After the completion of the investigation, the police finalized the challan against the respondent for the aforesaid offences for which he was charge sheeted. The respondent did not plead guilty and claim trial. 5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined complainant, PW2 Shayam Lal, PW3 Shanti Lal, PW4 Mehar Singh, PW5 Dr. Rituvesh Negi, PW9 Dr. M.L. Bandhu besides examining the official witnesses. 6. Respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the case of the prosecution and alleged false implication. No evidence in defence was led. 7. At the end of the trial the respondent was acquitted and the State felt aggrieved by his acquittal. 8. Respondent was brought in custody pursuant to non bailable warrants as his presence could not be procured in an ordinary way. He was unrepresented and requested to provide a counsel for him. Shri Ashish Sharma, Advocate present in the court opted to assist him, thus he is appointed as Amicus Curiae. The paper book was supplied to him and arguments heard. 9. Mr. A.K. Bansal, Learned Addl. Advocate General vehemently argued that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that the complainant has fully supported the case of the prosecution which is corroborated by the medical evidence. - 3 - 10. Contra, Shri Ashish Sharma, learned Amicus Curie argued that the record reveals that the complainant was intoxicated and picked up quarrel with the respondent. His testimony does not inspire confidence and the other material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution as such the acquittal cannot be interfered with as it is borne out from the facts on record. 11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have meticulously examined the evidence on record. 12. As per the initial version given by PW-1 Sobha Ram, complainant in the form of statement to the police (Ex. PW1/A), recorded on 28.2.2008 with respect to the incident which had taken place a day earlier, Jagdish Sharma and Shayam Lal (PW-2) were the eye witnesses. Shri Jagdish Sharma was not examined whereas Shayam Lal did not support the prosecution case. Pertinently, he had admitted that there were about 25 workers in the temple out of which 3-4 persons belonged out side the State whereas others were local and they did not have cordial relation. He admitted that complainant was aggressor and attacked the respondent with a danda which was meant to beat the drums. To retaliate the attack, the respondent picked up a plank to save himself. The complainant got a push, with the result he fell down and sustained injuries. PW3 Shanti Lal disputed the recovery of the plank. PW4 Mehar Singh testified that at the relevant time complainant was intoxicated though he visited the spot lateron when everything had finished. This fact is also testified by Dr. Rituvesh Negi (PW-5) who had medically examined the complainant. He categorically admitted that the complainant was under the influence of liquor and was intoxicated when he was brought for his medical examination and all these injuries which were sustained by the complainant could be possible due to fall. - 4 - 13. In the light of the aforesaid evidence, if the statement of injured Sobha Ram ( PW-1) is examined, he has denied that he was drunk at that time which is a blatant lie. His statement is improvised. He has stated that the respondent had entered into his room and gave beatings. When he was confronted with his previous statement recorded under Section 154, Cr.P.C., this fact did not find mentioned there. 14. In view of the above critical examination of the evidence on record, I do not find the statement of complainant worth confidence inspiring. Further, there is also no corroboration to his statement rather it points towards the innocence of the respondent and also that the complainant was aggressor. Thus, I agree with the findings of the learned trial Court that the prosecution could not prove the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, no illegality therein. As such the appeal filed by the State sans merit, accordingly dismissed. 15. Before parting with the appeal, I appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Ashish Sharma, Amicus Curiae for the respondent. The respondent, who has been brought today in the court, pursuant to the non bailable warrants issued against him by this Court, for his presence as aforesaid, is hereby ordered to be released forthwith. Appeal stands accordingly disposed of. . Send down the records. December 20, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Jai) Judge.