IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. 62 of 2004 Reserved on: June 23, 2010 Date of Decision : July 5, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant v. Anand Kishor & Anr. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. A.G. For the respondents: Mr. Bhupinder Ahuja, vice Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J. For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 4.8.1999, accused were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 22.10.2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, in Crl. Case No.552-I of 1999, titled as State of H.P. vs. Anand Kishor & Anr., the accused stand acquitted of the charged offences. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 4.8.1999 at about 7.00 p.m., accused persons gave beatings to one Man Singh (PW-5) at Gunnu Nullah. He suffered injuries on his right 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 leg and nose and blood also started oozing. He was accompanied by his brother Sh. Shyam Singh. Sh. Man Singh reported the matter to the police and his statement (Ext.PW-5/A) was recorded on the basis of which F.I.R. dated 21.8.1999 (Ext.PW- 7/C) under Sections 323, 325/34 IPC was registered with Police Station, Sadar, Distt. Chamba. The investigation was carried out by the police at the spot and the alleged weapons of offence, namely, stone (Ext.P-1) and danda (Ext.P-3) were taken into possession. The injuries were opined to be grievous in nature as per medical certificate (Ext.PW-2/A). 3. With the completion of the investigation the challan was presented in the Court for trial. The accused were charged for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 323, 325 & 506/34 IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case prosecution examined 7 witnesses and the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC was also recorded. The defence taken is that of false implication due to animosity. 4. Having gone through the records and perused the statements of the prosecution witnesses, I am of the considered view that no ground for interference is made out. 5. As per the statement of Dr. S. K. Mahajan (PW-3) the injuries could have been caused due to fall. 6. According to the complainant Sh. Man Singh (PW-5), he was crossing Gunnu Nullah along with his brother Shyam 3 Singh when accused No.1 came and gave him a fist blow due to which blood started oozing from his mouth. While he was running away accused No.2 Vijay caught hold of him and hit him with the stones on his right leg. Thereafter he fell unconscious. Now this version of the complainant does not inspire confidence at all. Admittedly, he was accompanied by Sh. Shyam Singh. What did Sh. Shyam Singh do at the spot has not been explained. Sh. Shyam Singh has also not been examined by the prosecution. That apart the incident is alleged to have been witnessed by one Sh. Chaman Singh. Even this witness has not been examined in the Court. This witness admits that his sister was married to the brother of accused No.1. It has come on record that she had died due to which the relations were strained. 7. Testimony of Sh. Tajbeej Singh (PW-6) who allegedly witnessed the occurrence of the incident does not inspire confidence at all. In fact he appears to be a planted witness. His house is at a distance of 30 to 40 kms. from the spot of occurrence. He has no business or connection with the people in the area. Hence, having witnessed the seizure of the weapon of offence in terms of memos (Ext.PW-1/A & Ext.PW-6/A), is doubtful. When confronted with his earlier version given to the police (Ext.DA) he admits that it had not been disclosed to the police that Sh. Man Singh had been pushed by accused Anand Kishor. 4 8. Testimony of Sh. Khajan Singh (PW-1), father of the injured is of no consequence. Similarly the evidence of the remaining official witnesses also does not advance the case of the prosecution. 9. The incident is alleged to have taken place in the morning hours and the F.I.R. is reported late in the evening. The F.I.R. was also sent to the Magistrate after a period of 3 days. This delay has also not been explained by the prosecution. 10. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Mohammed Ankoos and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the person has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. July 5 , 2010. (Sanjay Karol) (rana) Judge.