Nm IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 373 of 2001 Date of decision: November 6, 2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Piar Chand & others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1No For the Appellant Mr J. S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the Respondents 2 to 4: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. Surinder Singh,J. (Oral) The State has challenged the judgment of acquittal of the respondents for offences, punishable under sections 325, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (HP) in Case No.61-1 of 1999/98 dated 17.2.2001, on the grounds that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in its right perspective. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?yes 2 Shri Guleria, learned Law Officer for the State has vehemently argued that though the prosecution witnesses have precisely gone away from the initial case, during the trial of the case but they are consistent insofar as causing injuries to the complainant, his wife and daughter are concerned, their version is duly supported by the medical evidence. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned Law officer and have carefully gone through the evidence on record. Precisely, the case of the prosecution which was initiated by Smt. Bimla Devi (PW1) by lodging the FIR has been that one Premi Devi was stacking the bricks and stones on her land in village Kalol. Respondents reached the spot and raised objection about stacking of the aforesaid material, on this respondent Albel Singh gave a blow with iron-rod on the head of Ranbir Singh (PW5) and other respondents gave beating to Bimla Devi (PW1) and her daughter Kumari Reetu (PW6) with wooden plank (PHATI). On the basis of the complaint Ex.PW1/A. FIR was formally registered. 3 Ranbir Singh (PW5) and Kumari Reetu (PW6) were medically examined. Dr. Resham Singh (PW8) on examination of Kumari Reetu noticed abrasion in midline of her head and issued the Medico-legal-certificate Ex.PW8/A. He also examined Ranabir Singh (PW5) and found incised wound over the right parietal region, which was having fresh bleeding. According to him, said injury could be caused by iron rod Ex.P-1 and issued the medico- legal-certificate Ex.PW8/B. After completing the investigation, police presented the challan in the court for trial of the respondents. Finding a prima-facie case against the respondents, they were charge-sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and respondents were also examined, under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their case was of denial simplicitor. However, they have raised defence in the cross- examination of the witnesses that there was a suit pending inter-se the parties with respect to the land in question where stones and bricks were being stacked and status quo stay was issued by the civil 4 court and further that the complainant party was collecting the said material, which was of old house of the accused persons. Respondents did not lead any evidence in defence and at the end of the trial the learned trial court acquitted them on the ground; firstly that the prosecution was not able to establish the case against respondent Albel Singh, who was allegedly gave a blow of iron rod on the head of Ranbir Singh, secondly Bimla Devi did not say anything with respect to the injuries, alleged to have been caused to her and she was also not medically examined; thirdly Kumari Rittu (PW6) though stated to have been given beatings by respondent Parbati and named other person whereas role of Piar Chand was altogether excluded by the complainant and Subhash Chand; Fourthly, statement of PW2 Subhash Chand, PW4 Kartar Singh PW7 Shrawan casts doubt on the prosecution case, as they did not support the case of the prosecution. It is pertinent to mention here that case of Bimla Devi complainant in the FIR was that Albel Singh respondent gave a blow on the head of PW5 Ranbir Singh with an iron rod but as PW1 she 5 totally denied this version and stated that blow of iron rod was given by Piar Chand. She did not attribute any role to respondent Parvati and Albel Singh. She was also confronted with the complaint Ex.PW1/A. Further she has admitted litigation pending qua the land in question interse the respondents and complainant party. Smt. Premi Devi (PW3) gave different version. She did not say anything about stacking of the material by the complainant party but according to her she along with her grand daughter Rittu were sitting besides their house and respondent Piar Chand gave blow of iron rod to Ranbir Singh and Parbati had also given beating to Rittu. In the cross-examination she has stated that about 100 people had gathered there on the spot, but she did not name any one of them. PW2 Subhash Chand, PW4 Kartar Singh and PW7 Shrawan, as stated above, did not support the case of the prosecution, as such they were declared hostile but nothing material could be extracted in their cross-examination. PW5 Ranbir Singh has also given different version to that of the FIR. According to him, he was given blow by Piar Cahnd only and not by Albel 6 Singh and further stated that his wife and daughter were given beatings by the respondents. In his cross-examination he has admitted litigation and issuance of status quo, qua the land in question. Although he claimed the said land, having been purchased for Rs.1,200/- in the year 1976 and to that effect some writing was allegedly executed but he had misplaced it somewhere. He also admitted presence of 50-60 persons on the spot, at the time of alleged incident. However, he denied the defence put to him that respondent Piar Chand had dismantled his old house and constructed a new one and the material of the old house was being removed by them. PW6 Kumari Reetu has given another twist to story that respondents were stacking the material on the land, which belonged to them and they had tried to take possession thereof over which dispute erupted. In the cross-examination she, however, denied about the presence of 50-60 persons on the spot. On culling the evidence, I do find that the prosecution case has moved much beyond pivot of its initial story as set out in the police report, on the basis of which respondents were charge 7 sheeted and put to trial. The independent witnesses did not support the prosecution evidence. The other witnesses are close relatives, their version is not consistent, which casts doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution case. The learned trial court has rightly picked up and discussed the evidence on record. The conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court is borne out from the evidence adduced, which requires no interference by this Court. Appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. November 6, 2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (D)