1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.603 of 2001 Date of Decision: December 1, 2008 _______________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant. Versus Babu Ram and another Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No For the appellant : Mr J.S.Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondents: Mr Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, with. Ms. Anita Dogra, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J . (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents in Criminal Case No.141/2 of 2000/99, decided on 11.1.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arki Camp at Nalagarh, District Solan (H.P.) on the ground that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence on record in its right perspective, which has caused miscarriage of justice. Precisely, the case against the respondents has been that on 18.4.1999 at about 7 p.m. respondent Babu Ram was busy in construction work of the School. Joginder Singh was a labourer with him. The complainant owed some wages from Babu Ram. He asked the respondent to pay him his dues but in turn he hurled abuses to him, thereafter, respondent started giving kick Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 blows and fisticuffing to him. The co-accused Suresh Kumar also joined the pursuit. Joginder Singh was also allegedly given injury by But of the rifle. Thereafter, he made a complaint to the police. Injured Joginder Singh was got medically examined. He suffered fracture of mandible left side. The injury was also x-rayed. The x- ray films are Ex.PW1/C & D. Report of the Doctor (Ex..PW1/A) revealed fracture. On the basis of the report (Ex.PW6/A) formal FIR Ex.PW7/A was registered. Police visited the spot and prepared the site plan Ex.PW8/A. After recording the statements of the witnesses, a challan was presented in the court, for the trial of the respondents, under sections 325 and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the end of the trial, respondents were acquitted by the learned trial court by giving them the benefit of doubt on the grounds that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, except the interested witnesses, no other witness of the locality was examined, the rifle, with which the injuries to the complainant were given, was not taken into possession, cross FIR in the police station was also lodged against the complainant party and truth did not surface during the trial. Vide a separate order even dated the respondents were allowed to place on record the certified copy of the cross FIR, lodged by respondent Babu Ram and copy of the judgment whereby the complainant party also faced the trial and acquitted. Babu Ram had also reported the matter to the police, at Police Station Barotiwala, on 19.4.1999 with respect to the same incident, which was recorded in daily diary (rapat No.14) 3 which culminated into FIR No.0032 dated 19.4.1999, under sections 325,506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In that case besides other injuries there was a partial dislocation of teeth of Babu Ram respondent. Complainant Joginder Singh and his co-accused (PW3) faced the trial and were acquitted against which no appeal was filed by the State. In the instant case, Joginder Singh complainant has alleged beating with rifle But and having caused the injury on his left side of the mandible by Babu Ram as a result of which he fell unconscious on the spot. On the next day he had lodged the report in the police station. Surprisingly enough, in the cross- examination he has denied that a case under section 325 IPC with respect to the same incident was going on. But in further cross-examination he admitted pendency of the case. It is not understood as to why he was suppressing the true facts from the court. Significantly he stated having not mentioned the names of other accused persons except Babu Ram in his complaint. Respondent Babu Ram is admitted to be Pradhan of Vasani Panchayat whereas Shri Bansi Ram (PW4) was a rival candidate. However, he denied that he was a supporter of Bansi Ram. It is admitted by him that names of Ram Chand and Prem Chand were added by the police themselves, even he disowned the statement Ex.D-1, recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. to this effect. PW3 is Kamal Jeet. He has admitted that he was an accused in the cross-case lodged by respondent Babu Ram and in that incident Babu Ram had lost his teeth but it is no where stated as to how he had sustained such a grievous injury. This fact has also not been explained by complainant Joginder Singh PW2. 4 PW4 Bansi Ram has not supported the case of the prosecution and he admitted in his cross-examination that he did not see the fight between the respondents and complainant party. The Investigating Officer has also not stated as to how the respondent Babu Ram got a fracture of his tooth and what had transpired to him in the investigation of this case and he decided to proceed against both the parties separately. It is not established from the record as to who was the aggressor. Truth in the instant case was kept hidden like an ice-berg. Therefore, in these circumstances and also on the basis of contradictory evidence, the learned trial court rightly acquitted them by giving them the benefit of doubt. Thus, for the foregoing reasons the impugned judgment of acquittal calls for no interference by this court, as the findings arrived at by the learned trial court are reasonable and borne out from the record. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. December 1,2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (D)