1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 241 of 2001 Decided on December 30, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Puran Chand ...Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. ¹Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General, with Mr.Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate. Justice Surinder Singh,J. (oral) Respondent was tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 324, 323, 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, in Criminal Case No.97/2 of 2000, decided on 27.11.2000. The State, by means of the present appeal, has assailed his acquittal. 2. In short, the prosecution case can be stated thus. On 22.1.2000, around 11 P.M., complainant Shera (PW.1) was going to Mahipur, to the house of his sister to pay amount of `6000/-. around 2.00 P.M., when he reached near the house of Man Singh, he met him there alongwith respondent and one another person, who was not known to him. They restrained him from going ahead through that path. The complainant told them that he was going to Dadahu, however, Man Singh and his accomplice gave beatings to him by fist and kicks. It was 2 specifically alleged that Man Singh had caused injuries on his left hand and left leg with sharp edged weapon ( Khukhree) . The blood came out from the injury. With great difficulty he could get relieved from them and went to a house in village 'Maryo' and applied bandage of cloth. He also alleged loss of money which was allegedly with him. He came to the main road and took lift in a van upto 'Bangala Colony', where he reached round 8.00 P.M. and apprised about the incident to one Mathu Ram (PW.3). On the next morning, he informed telephonically his father and both of them went to the police and lodged FIR. 3. Police swung into action, got the complainant medically examined. Two incised wounds were noticed by the doctor and one on the left palm and another on the left knee and issued medico legal certificate (Ex.PW.1/D). Duration of such injuries was opined to be less than 36 hours and injury No.1 was said to be grievous by Dr.M.L. Gupta (PW.6). Police visited the spot, prepared site plan (Ex.PW.6/A) and also took into possession blood stained leaves vide memo (Ex.PW.3/A). The respondent allegedly produced Khukhree (Ex.P-4). Statements of the witnesses were recorded and during the investigation police found that the story as propounded by the complainant was not believable qua other accused persons except the respondent, as such, prepared challan against him and presented it for trial against him in the Court. 3 4. The respondent was accordingly charge-sheeted, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove its case, prosecution examined 7 witnesses. The respondent was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he took up the defence that prior to his marriage, his wife was having love affairs with the complainant, due to which complainant harboured enmity against him, however, he pleaded innocence and alleged false implication in the case. 6. At the end of the trial, respondent was acquitted disbelieving the prosecution version. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also reappraised the evidence on record. 8. It is an admitted case of the parties that wife of the respondent, was having love affair with the complainant before her marriage. Though complainant had tried to go nearer to her but he was warned by respondent not to go to hover around. On 22.1.2000, complainant again was found having using the said path which was going towards the house of respondent. He was allegedly restrained by Man Singh respondent and one more person. But during the trial, he did not name that Man Singh who is anyway responsible to cause sharp edge injury to him as alleged in the FIR. During the trial he changed his stand that it was respondent, who caused injuries to him. But there is no explanation worth the name offered by him why he had named Man Singh. His very story, 4 to which he propounded from its initial stage appears to be doubtful. There was no other witness who is alleged to have seen the occurrence. The whole case hinges upon the testimony of the complainant (PW1), which is unworthy of credit. 9. PW3 Sh.Mathu Ram stated that though complainant had told him that it was respondent, who caused injuries to him, significantly, he also stated that his statement was not recorded by the police. Then how the police relied upon his version. Further Dr.S. Tarafdar (PW.4) has not overruled the possibility of sustaining these injuries due to fall and having come in contact with broken pieces of glass. 10. PW5 Sh.Balbir Singh, who was driver of the van in which the complainant took lift stated that the person, who had taken lift in his vehicle was drunken and he alighted him near 'Bangala colony'. He did not support the prosecution case as alleged. 11. PW.6 Dr. M.L. Gupta stated that the complainant was admitted in the hospital, he was under his treatment. He was suffering from infection injury on his left hand. In cross- examination, he admitted that for injuries mentioned in MLC, his admission was not required. Meaning thereby the complainant was not admitted in the hospital for the injuries which he claims to have been caused by the respondent but for some other injury i.e. due to infection on his hand. 5 12. Though the complainant stated having lost amount of `6000/- which he was having in his possession yet during the investigation no such amount was recovered either from the respondent or on the spot. During cross-examination he has stated that he got this money from selling a goat but no such person was produced and examined as a witness in order to support this version. Therefore, very possession of `6000/- with him is doubtful also for the reason that the complainant was a hawker selling bangles and was living in 'Bangala colony' at Dadahu. He has failed to prove that this much money was with him and was going to repay his sister. The possibility of hovering around the house of the respondent to establish contact with her fiancé cannot be ruled out. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances, in our view the statement of complainant is not inspiring confidence, the findings of acquittal as recorded by the trial court are borne out from the evidence on record, which requires no interference. The State appeal sans merit, hence dismissed. 14. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of this case. Send down the records. (R.B. Misra) Judge December 30, 2010 (Surinder Singh) (Purohit) Judge