IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 171 of 2001. Reserved on: 25.02.2008. Decided on: 29.2.2008. State of Himachal Pradesh. … … Appellant. Versus Sanjeev Singh & Others. … … Accused/Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Deputy Advocate General. For the Accused/Respondents: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The respondents were prosecuted in case No.176-1 of 95 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.2, Amb, District Una (H.P.) under Sections 147, 148, 506-B, 325, 323 and 109 I.P.C. and were acquitted on 19.8.2000. The State has come in appeal against the judgment dated 19.8.2000. The brief facts, which can be culled out from the judgment of the trial Court are that on 2.9.1995 at about 6.45 P.M. accused persons formed an unlawful assembly whose common object was to commit an offence and accused persons also caused grievous as well as simple injuries to Rajesh Kumar and Anil Kumar with iron rods near Mubarikpur. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - The matter was reported to the police by Anil Kumar vide Rapat Ex.PW-8/A on the basis of which F.I.R. Ex.PW-10/E was registered against the accused persons. The site plan Ex.PW-10/A was prepared during the course of investigation and the police also took into possession the rods Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 vide memo Ex.PW-10/B and also obtained the M.L.C. of Rajesh Kumar Ex.PW-9/A and his X-Ray film Ex.PW-7/A and also obtained the M.L.C. of Anil Kumar and Charanjit Singh Ex.PW-9/B and Ex.PW-9/C and their X-Ray films Ex.PW-7/B and C respectively. The prosecution had examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court had acquitted the respondents on 19.8.2000. Hence, this appeal against the judgment of acquittal, dated 19.8.2000. The learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondents and the findings recorded by the trial Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Mr. Ajay Sharma had supported the judgment dated 19.8.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The F.I.R. was registered at the instance of Anil Kumar, PW-1. PW-1 had stated that when he alongwith his friends reached Mubarikpur near Janta Motor Work-shop, they parked the jeep in which they were travelling near the work-shop as the gear box of the jeep had turned out of order. There was a dispute with regard to the charges as demanded by the owner of the work-shop. According to him at the instance of the owner of the work-shop, Sanjeev, Rajeev and Billa started beating them. Similar is the statement of PW-2, Narender Singh. He had stated that the accused persons started to beat them with iron rods. PW-3 Deepak Kohli had stated that Sanjeev Kumar and Billa accused had given them beatings with iron rods resulting in injuries to Rajesh Kumar - 3 - and Anil. He also stated that Charanjit Singh sustained injuries on his back bone and he became unconscious. PW-4 is Charanjit Singh. He had stated that during the fight, accused Rajeev gave blow on his back bone and on the arm of Anil Kumar. PW-5, Rajesh Kumar had stated that he sustained injuries on his nose with iron rod and blood was oozing out from his nose and he became unconscious. PW-6, Rattan Chand was declared hostile. PW-7, Rangila Ram, Radiographer had stated that on 4.9.1995 he took X-Ray of Anil Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and Charanjit Singh. PW-9, Dr. P.C. Daroch has medically examined Rajesh Kumar and found three injuries on his person as mentioned in M.L.C. Ex.PW-9/A issued by him. PW-9 had further stated that he also examined Anil Kumar and found two injuries on his person as mentioned in M.L.C. Ex.PW-9/B. He then stated that he had also examined on the same day Charanjit Singh and found three injuries on his person as mentioned in M.L.C. Ex.PW-9/C. The case was investigated by PW-10, A.S.I. Om Parkash. PW-11, Dr. Gurcharan Singh had deposed that he had given opinion on the M.L.C., X-Ray No.278 ABC and all X-Ray of Rajesh Kumar dated 4.9.1995 brought by Constable Lal Chand. His opinion is Ex.PW-11/A. He had also given opinion Ex.PW-11/B on the X-Ray of Charanjit Singh. DW-1, Sumesh Kumar was examined by the accused in defence. PW-1, Anil Kumar though had stated that Sanjeev, Rajeev and Billa had beaten them with iron rods resulting in injuries to Rajesh Kumar, PW-5 and Charanjit Singh, PW-4, but he could not state out of three accused, Sanjeev, Rajeev and Billa who gave blow on the nose of Rajesh Kumar and who gave blow on the back bone of Charanjit Singh. Similarly, PW-2, Narender Singh had stated that accused persons gave beatings with rods on the complainant party resulting in injuries to Anil Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and Charanjit Singh. PW-2 has no-where stated - 4 - who gave blow on the nose of Rajesh Kumar and who gave blow on the back bone of Charanjit Singh. He had stated in his cross-examination that he does not recognise Sanjeev, Rajeev and Billa from the accused persons. He could also not identify the accused persons present in the Court who were holding rods in their hands. He also admitted further in his cross-examination that he does not recognise/identify the person who gave blow on the nose of Rajesh Kumar. PW-4, Charanjit Singh, who was injured had stated in his examination-in-chief that Rajeev gave iron rod blow on his back bone and on the arm of Anil Kumar. However, F.I.R. shows that Rajeev gave blow on the nose of Rajesh Kumar and Sanjeev gave blow on the back bone of Charanjit Singh. Thus, there are contradictions in the contents of the F.I.R. and the statement of Charanjit Singh. Even Rajesh Kumar, who appeared as PW-5 has not stated who gave blow on his nose. The prosecution had not examined any independent witness though according to PWs.1, 2 and 4 many people had assembled on the spot. It was essential for the prosecution to prove who out of the accused persons had inflicted injuries on the persons of Anil Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and Charanjit Singh. The prosecution had also examined no independent witness though available. In view of the above discussion, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondents and they have been rightly acquitted by the trial Court after correctly appreciating the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents-accused are discharged. February 29, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma), (sck) Judge. - 5 -