Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.434 of 2003. Date of Decision: September 20, 2010. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Bhawani Singh. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? For the Appellant : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral) : Heard and gone through the record. 2. The respondent was acquitted by the learned trial Court, for the offence punishable under Sections 451, 506 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code in Cr.Case No.85-II/96 decided on 7.9.2000, which has been assailed in this appeal by the State. 3. On 4.2.1996, PW2 Geeta Devi was in her house in the evening at about 7 p.m. Her husband reached there, but on account of the birth day of her brother-in-law, he went to village - 2 - Bag alongwith children, leaving behind her elder daughter Babli, who was sleeping with her children in the adjacent room. Because of the failure of the electricity supply, PW2 Geeta Devi started cooking food in the kitchen with the help of kerosene lamp. After about 20 minutes, she heard the sound of some shouting from outside, to open the door. Her daughter PW3 Babli asked about the identity of the person. Thereafter PW3 Babli opened the door, in the meantime complainant PW2 Geeta Devi also came from the kitchen towards verandah of her house and noticed respondent standing on the door. She asked about the reason of his visit, on this she was dragged by the respondent with one hand and in another he was holding a ‘knife’ with which he gave 2/3 blows in her stomach. In the meantime, her daughter PW3 Babli came out to the verandah. The respondent left the complainant (PW2) there and ran away. While fleeing he threatened Babli aforesaid with dire consequences. - 3 - 4. When examined in the Court Geeta Devi complainant aforesaid deviated from her earlier version materially and considerably. She did not say that Babli had opened the door as initially stated by her in the report Ex.PA, lodged to the police, rather she stated that when there was a knock at the door, she came alongwith lamp her hand to the verandah and saw the respondent present there. She asked about the purpose of the visit, on this he gave 2/3 blows of knife. There is nothing on record to show what happened to the lamp nor it was taken into possession by the police on spot to lend strength to her version. It was also pitch dark outside. In absence of light it could not have been possible to the complainant to identify the respondent, when he was not known to her earlier. 5. PW3 Babli stated that on knocking the door, she asked about the identity of the person, the person told that he was her brother and the door was opened by her mother, but there was no light and she did not say that her mother was having a lamp in her hand. - 4 - 6. PW5 Jagdish was examined as eye witness of the incident, but he did not support the case of the prosecution and also stated that he did not see the respondent while fleeing from the place of incident. 7. It stands admitted that there was love marriage between PW3 Babli and Ashok Kumar of Haryana, who was from the different caste. From this marriage, she had given birth to three children and after the marriage, she did visit the house of her parents. PW3 Babli admitted that the respondent is the uncle of her husband Ashok Kumar. During those days, she was not pulling well with her husband and that was the reason she took shelter in the house of her parents. Babli also testified in cross-examination that many persons including the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat had reached the spot at the time of incident. But none of them was examined. 8. In so far as the statement of the injured in this case is covered she could not be relied upon because of material contradiction in her earlier - 5 - statement given to the police under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with that as spoken by her during the trial of the case. Both are irreconcilable giving rise to a substantial doubt. The learned trial Court had rightly held that in view of the aforesaid material contradictions, it is dangerous to place implicit reliance upon her statement. 9. The findings of the learned trial Court for recording acquittal of the respondent are borne out from the record and there is no other independent witness to substantiate her version, as such, the acquittal passed by the learned trial court cannot be interfered with. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. 10. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds, entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of the case. 11. Send down the records. September 20, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.