Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.231 of 2004. Date of Decision: September 30, 2010. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Puran Chand and another. ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? For the Appellant : Mr. J.S. Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Devender Thakur, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (oral) : The State has come in appeal against the acquittal of the respondents, for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the judgment of the learned trial Court passed in Police Challan No.151-1/1998 on 2.3.2004. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. In short, the prosecution story can be stated thus. On 12th December, 1997, at about 3.30 p.m., PW1 Ravinder Nath alongwith his friends PW2 Shanti Bhushan - 2 - and Arun Sharma while returning from their school to their village were way laid by the respondents. He was given kick blows and fisticuffed and also given beatings with belt Ex.P1. Shanti Bhushan, Anu and Arun Sharma intervened and rescued him from the clutches of the respondents. 4. The matter was reported to the police, which culminated into FIR Ex.PW5/B. Police took up the investigation, got the medical examination of PW1 Ravinder Nath done and obtained the MLC Ex.PW6/A alongwith the ski- gram Ex.PW4/B. The Radiologist opined that the skull x-ray revealed separation of the suture of the parietal and frontal bone. 5. After completing the investigation, challan was presented in the court for the trial of the respondents under the aforesaid sections. The respondents denied the incident. At the end of trial, they were acquitted, on the grounds that there have been civil and criminal cases inter se the parties and further that the evidence of the prosecution does not worth inspiring confidence. 6. Although, it has come in evidence that there has been previous litigation inter se the parties, yet it can not be said that allegation is false, but previous acrimony - 3 - might be the cause for assault; therefore, the prosecution evidence has to be scrutinized closely. 7. PW1 Ravinder Nath is an injured person. He categorically stated that he was attacked by the respondents and given beatings as aforesaid. He further stated that he was relieved from the clutches of the respondents by PW2 Shanti Bhushan and his other friends. He further testified that respondents had pelted stones and one of which had hit his head. PW2 Shanti Bhushan has lent strength to his version. The fatal suggestion was given to him by the accused in his cross-examination that when the said incident took place, the complainant was not relieved by anyone. It means that the respondents admitted their presence on the place of incident. It has also been suggested that with respect to the same incident a case was also lodged against the complainant party, but this fact has not been suggested either to PW8 HHC Dalip Singh or PW5 HC Biri Singh. Even respondents did not explain this fact into their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor provided it by preponderance of probability. - 4 - 8. On the close scrutiny of the evidence, I do not find that the discrepancies in the prosecution case, as detailed by the learned trial Court are fatal. These are very minor in nature and bear a ring of truth. The approach of the learned trial Court attaching too much importance to it is wrong. 9. Once it is proved that the respondents had attacked the complainant and caused injuries, they are liable to the extent that they inflicted the injuries in furtherance of their common intention and one of the injuries on the head of the injured was not proved to be grievous, because doctor stated that the x-ray had shown the separation of suture joint formed by parietal and frontal bone. His opinion Ex.PW4/A. The natural opening of the suture cannot also be ruled out. Further neither PW6 Dr. J.C.Sharma nor PW4 Dr. S.K. Malhotra stated anything about the injury on seat where there has been separation of suture. Also, the separation of the suture in the above stated position can neither be said to be a fracture nor dislocation, therefore, in my opinion, the prosecution was not able to prove the case against the respondents, for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. But, of course, it - 5 - stands proved that the respondents were responsible for causing simple hurt to PW1 Ravinder Nath, as such, the acquittal of the respondents is perverse. Hence the respondents are held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they are accordingly convicted, for the said offence. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the respondents are young persons and by now they have settled in their life, having their children and they are sole bread earners of their families. He also argued that the alleged incident had taken place about 13 years ago and the respondents have suffered torture of trial, therefore, at this stage, sending them to prison would tarnish their image in the society and their families would be ruined. 11. I have considered this aspect of the case and also the mitigating and extenuating circumstances appearing on record, vis-a-vis the age of the respondents. Therefore it shall be in the interest of justice that the respondents are released on probation. Accordingly, the respondents are admonished by giving - 6 - them the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Appeal stands disposed of. 12. Send down the records. September 30, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.