IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A.No.644/2002. Decided on:25.6.2009. __________________________________________________________ State of H.P. …..Appellant. Versus Santosh Kumari. …Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?No For the petitioner :Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. ____________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J(Oral): The respondent was tried and acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian penal Code which has been challenged in this appeal. In short, the prosecution case is that on 17.2.2002 at about 10 a.m., complainant-Raksha Devi was in her court yard. It is alleged that the respondent along with Joginder Singh, Kewal Kumar and Rakesh Kumar started removing the stones collected by her from the court-yard. On raising the objection, the respondent attacked upon her with the ‘Darat’ (a sharp edged weapon) thereby causing cut injury on the left hand of the complainant. On raising hue and cry, PW3 Gulshan Kumar her son visited the spot and is alleged to have rescued her from the clutches of the respondent. The matter was Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 reported to the police and the complainant was medically examined. After obtaining M.L.C., an F.I.R was registered under the aforesaid Section. The police had prepared the site plan and also recorded the statement of the witnesses. The recovery of the ‘darat’ Ext.P-1 was made vide seizure memo Ext.PW2/A .On completing the investigation, the case was presented against the respondent for her trial in the Court. The respondent was chargesheeted for the aforesaid offence to which she denied and claimed to face the trial. At the end of the trial she was acquitted by the learned trial Court. Shri Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective and came to a different conclusion than which was borne out to convict the respondent. I have thoughtfully considered the aforesaid arguments and have carefully gone through the record. As a matter of fact, the incident is alleged to have taken place on 17th February, 2002 which fact has been totally demolished by the complainant and her witnesses when examined in the Court by saying that the incident took place on 17th March, 2002. Not only this even PW4 Des Raj the husband of the complainant and father of PW3 deposed that nothing had happened in his presence rather the incident was disclosed by his wife to him on 17th March, 2002. Admittedly both the parties are not in visiting in the house of each other for the last about two decades. It is admitted by the complainant that many applications were pending against her at the instance of the accused in the Panchayat. The prosecution witness not only 3 contradicted the date of the incident but also with respect to the injury caused to the complainant. The complainant stated that she sustained the injury of ‘Darat’ given by the respondent on her left hand. But PW3 Gulshan Kumar the alleged eye witness has stated about causing the injury on the right hand whereas in the cross- examination he has categorically stated that he did not witness the alleged incident but came lateron on the spot. He further stated that Kewal Kumar, Rakesh Kumar and Joginder Singh were also present on the spot but none of them were either made accused nor cited as the witness in order to substantiate the version of the complainant. After examining the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who are close relatives and in view of the material contradictions, in my opinion, the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court for such a finding of acquittal is borne out from the record which requires no interference. As such the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. (Surinder Singh), Judge. June 25, 2009(R)