IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cri. Appeal No. 141 of 2000 Reserved on : 16th September, 2010 Date of Decision: 23rd September, 2010 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Gurditta and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta,J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr.Vijay Beer, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 5.10.1994, accused was put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 2.8.1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, District Kangra, in Criminal Case No.26-II/1995, titled as State of H.P. vs. Gurditta and others, accused stand acquitted of the charged offence. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 5.10.1994 Tej Ram (PW-1) was irrigating his fields along with Gurpal and Moti. PW-1 went to purchase Biddies from the shop in the bazaar where accused Gurditta, Dilabar Singh, Ravi Kumar and Surmi Ram attacked him. Both accused Gurditta and Dilabar Singh gave a blow with a sickle as a result of which Tej Ram suffered injuries on his head and became unconscious. The Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 incident was witnessed by Shri Gurdyal Singh (PW-3) and Shri Ram Singh (PW-3). 3. Tej Ram reported the matter to the police on the basis of which FIR No.328 of 1994 dated 5.10.1994 (Ext. PW-1/A) was registered with Police Station Indora, under Sections under Sections 324 read with Section 34, IPC against the accused persons. During investigation the injured got medically examined through Dr.T.K.Roy (PW-4) and MLC (Ext.PW-4/A) was taken on record. The sickle (Ext.P-1) was taken into possession by the police during investigation vide seizure memo Ext.PW- 5/A. Blood stained clothes of PW-1 were also taken into possession by the police. With the completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 4. The accused were charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34, I.P.C., to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and the statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was also recorded. 6. The Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offence for the reason that the statements of the witnesses, apart from being contradictory did not inspire confidence. 7. From the statement of PW-4 as also medical record (Ext.PW-4/A) it cannot be disputed that PW-1 did suffer injuries. Importantly, the Doctor who carried out the x-ray has not been examined. Therefore, whether the injuries were grievous or simple could not be conclusively proved. This, however, would not mean that accused were guilty of the charged offence. 3 8. Having gone through the record, we find that statement of PW-1 stands contradicted by the material on record. 9. It is the case of the complainant that outside the shop of Rikhi Ram all the accused persons had met him and given beatings to him and inflicted blows with a sickle. However, in Court, for the reasons best known to him, PW-1 contradicted his earlier version stating that he had not seen accused Ravi Kumar and Surmi Ram and only it was accused Gurditta and Dilabar Singh, who had given blows with a sickle to him According to him, both of them were carrying sickles, but, however, during investigation the police took into possession only one sickle. The statement of this witness, in our considered view does not inspire confidence. In his cross-examination he admits that there is prior litigation pending inter-se between the parties and he is an accused in the same. 10. The incident was witnessed by Gurdyal Singh (PW-2) and Ram Singh (PW-3). We find that there are major contradictions in the statements of all the material witnesses. Whereas according to PW-1 it was only Gurditta and Dilabar Singh who had given a blow of sickle to him, but, however, according to PW-2 accused Ravi Kumar and Surmi Ram had inflicted blows with fists and Danda. Danda has not been taken into possession by the prosecution. 11. That apart, presence of PW-2 and PW-3 at the spot appears to be doubtful. According to PW-3 the place where the incident took place was at a distance from the shop of Rikhi Ram from where he had purchased Biddies. But, however, according to PW-2 the incident took place in front of the shop. It is not the case of the prosecution that the said shop was closed at the time of occurrence of the incident. Had the 4 incident taken place in front of the shop then definitely it would have been witnessed by the shop owner and other persons present in the bazaar. No such person has been associated during investigation or examined in the Court by the prosecution. 12. Further according to PW-1 the sickle was handed over by accused Gurditta and was sealed by the police, whereas according to PW-2 it was PW-1, who had produced the sickle before the police. Jagat Ram (PW-5) has given yet another version. According to him, the sickle was handed over to the police in the Police Station and was not wrapped/ sealed. Importantly, in Court, PW-1 has categorically denied the sickle (PW-1) to be the one with which the accused had inflicted him a blow. 13. In view of the material contradictions in the statement of the witnesses, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 14. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Mohammed Ankoos and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the persons has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. (Deepak Gupta) Judge. 23rd September, 2010 (Sanjay Karol), (C) Judge. 5