IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.637 of 2002 Date of judgment: July 6, 2009 State of H.P. ..Appellant. Versus Anant Ram & ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. . For the Respondents : Mr.Subhash Sharma, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 5. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) Respondents No.6 and 7 are stated to have died. So, the appeal against them abates. State has appealed against the judgment dated 18.5.2002 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, whereby respondents, numbering 7, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 147, 323 and 325 read with Section 149 IPC, have been acquitted. A case was registered against the respondents at Police Station, Hamirpur, at the instance of PW3 Amro Devi, on 3.10.1996. Amro Devi lodged report to the following effect. On 3.10.1996, around 7 am, she noticed the respondents Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - cutting bamboos from a grove near her house. The grove stood on the boundary of the fields of Amro Devi’s husband PW8 Amar Singh and respondent Anant Ram. When Amro Devi objected to the cutting of bamboos from that grove, respondent allegedly went to her courtyard and assaulted her. They hit her with a ‘danda’ on her mouth, as a result of which one of her teeth started bleeding and also became mobile. On hearing her cries, her husband Amar Singh, PW8, and Anu Bala, her daughter, reached there. They too were assaulted. PW8 Amar Singh was dealt a fist blow on his mouth by respondent Anant Ram, due to which one of his teeth was broken and fell on the spot. Both Amar Singh, his wife Amro Devi and their daughter Anu Bala were dealt ‘danda’ blows and they received a number of injuries. Matter was investigated. Police challaned all the seven respondents. They were charged with the aforesaid offences. Though in their statements, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., respondents did not take any specific plea, yet while cross-examining the witnesses, they threw suggestions that bamboo grove belonged to them and that when Amro Devi and her husband PW8 Amar Singh objected to the cutting of bamboos from that grove, fight free for all, took place. Trial Court held that the case of prosecution was not proved, - 3 - beyond reasonable doubt, and there were serious contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution case indicating that the prosecution version was not correct. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence. Amro Devi, PW3, stated that two accused were armed with ‘dandas’ and one namely Anant Ram, was having a cane and that cane had been snatched from him by her husband Amar Singh. Amro’s statement that she had also been dealt a ‘danda’ blow on her mouth, resulting in mobility of one of her teeth, is not corroborated by medical examination. Even though PW6 Dr. S.C.Agarwal, noticed mobility of one of her teeth, he did not find any corresponding injury on the lip or inside the cheeks, suggesting that the cause of mobility was not any blow given from outside the socket. Other injuries found on her person were simple in nature. Testimony of PW1 Geeta Devi is that parties had scuffled with each other, when Amro Devi objected to the cutting of bamboos from the grove. There is no evidence, indicating that in fact the bamboo grove belonged to Amro Devi. If that is so, she was not justified in objecting to that. One of the teeth of PW8 Amar Singh, no doubt got broken, and as per his as also his wife’s testimony, it was on - 4 - account of a fist blow given by Anant Ram, but, as already noticed, the parties had a scuffle and a fight, free for all, per deposition of Amro Devi and, therefore, the possibility of Amar Singh having sustained injuries on his mouth, in that scuffle or a fight, free for all, cannot be ruled out. Prosecution version that the respondents went to the courtyard of Amro Devi to give beating to her is falsified by the testimony of Investigating Officer, PW7 Rattan Chand, who says that the site of the incident was 25 – 30 yards away from Amro’s house. In fact, Amro’s own testimony is also confusing as to the site of the incident. At one stage, she says that she was assaulted in her courtyard and at another she stated that the incident had taken place behind her cow-shed. In view of the above stated position, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, appeal is dismissed. July 6, 2009. (Surjit Singh), J. s.