IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 625 of 2002 Date of decision: 24.2.2010 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Hardev Singh & another Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant: Mr.Vikas Rathore, Dy.Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja,J. This appeal has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the Court of learned Special Judge, Shimla, dated 22.4.2002 vide which, he acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them under Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities Act) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and under Section 323 IPC. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 28.8.1999 at about 3.40 P.M. a rapat was lodged with the police by one Smt. Harmila Devi in which she alleged that on the previous day at about 5.00 P.M. she had gone to the road side to bring articles brought by her husband from Delhi. She stated that she was Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 accompanied by Nand Lal. Hardev Singh respondent, came there from his house and asked her as to how she dared to prevent his son from grazing cattle in her fields. She asked the accused to see himself the loss caused to them and thereupon respondent Hardev Singh called her Daggi, Chamar, Koli and persons eating the flesh of animals. Thereafter he gave a Danda blow on her left arm and on the back and also slapped on her right ear. Smt. Harmila Devi respondent No.2, wife of the respondent No.1 also came there and she also gave her one Danda blow on her left arm and another on the right leg and called her by names Daggi, Chamar etc. On this report, FIR was registered and the case was investigated by a Deputy Superintendent of Police as per the requirement of the Act. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that the complainant has stated that she was called by names by respondent No.1 Hardev Singh and then by his wife respondent No.2 Harmila Devi and both of them gave blows on her person with Dandas. The complainant, when she appeared in the witness box as PW-1 made improvements that the respondent No.1 had shouted to his son to bring an axe so that the complainant was cut into pieces. This improvement has been made by the complainant to make the offence more serious though it was never alleged in the complaint lodged by her. Her statement has been sought to be corroborated by PW-2 Nand Lal who was accompanying her but he is real nephew of her husband. There was no mention of the presence of PW-3 Mani Ram at the spot who was examined subsequently when he was told that the accused had hurled 3 abuses upon the complainant and he never stated that the respondents had called her by names in his presence and he was told in this regard. Moreover, it has come up in the statement of the complainant that they had buried a cow at a distance of 40 to 50 yards from the house of the respondent and foul smell was coming from that place as admitted by her as well as her husband’s nephew PW-2 Nand Lal and DW-1 Smt. Diksha Devi, a neighbour. The complainant stated that the cattle was buried a month ago while PW-2 Nand Lal has stated that it was buried a week ago. This appears to be the main cause of dispute in between the parties. It may be correct that the complainant party had buried a cattle near the house of the respondent which was giving foul smell. It has come on record that an inquiry was going on against the husband of the complainant and that it was at the instance of the respondent Hardev Singh. The learned trial Court has pointed out infirmities in the prosecution case in which it shows that complainant had made improvements in her testimony. There were also some contradictions in regard to the statements of the witnesses as to when these were recorded. PW-3 Mani Ram says that his statement was recorded after about 10 days whereas the Investigating Officer has stated that it was recoded on 18.9.1999. There is also contradiction in regard to the date when the Dandas were recovered vide memo. Ex. PD. Keeping in view the contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the fact that the medical evidence does not fully corroborate the version given by the complainant, namely, 4 the injuries, but it does not inspire confidence and there is nothing on the record to show that the reasoning given by the learned trial Court in acquitting the respondents can be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court and, as such, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the respondents which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged. February 24,2010. (V.K.Ahuja),J. (sds)