IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 522 of 2001 Date of decision: 21.07.2008 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Nek Mohammed & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. II, Amb, dated 20.6.2001, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 6.6.2000, at about 4.00PM, a report was lodged with the police by one Noor Navi, complainant, that he alongwith his wife were present in the courtyard of their house, at about 6.30AM, when his wife objected to tying of lamb with their tree by Urmila Bibi. It was further alleged that exchange of words took place in between the complainant and Mehar Deen. Nek 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Mohammed, respondent No. 1, came there and gave a head blow on the person of the complainant who fell down. It was alleged that thereafter remaining respondents came to the spot and gave him beatings with legs, fist and a stone blow was given over his head and blood started oozing out. Meanwhile son of the complainant, namely, Sher Mohammed and his wife Nazira Bibi came to rescue the complainant, they were also given beatings with legs, fist and Danda blows by the accused persons. The complainant alleged that he alongwith his son and his wife has suffered injuries and a report was lodged with the police leading to the registration of the case as against the respondents. After investigation, the challan was filed as against the respondents who were tried by the learned trial Court leading to their acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The first point taken by the learned trial court in disbelieving the prosecution story is that the occurrence had taken place at 6.30AM on 6.6.2000, but the report was lodged at 4.00PM on the same day by the complainant. The explanation given by the complainant was that he had firstly met Superintendent of Police in his office who asked him to go and lodge report with the Police Station, Amb and thereafter, he came to Police Station, Amb and lodged the report. However, it is in the statement of PW-7 Bashira Bibi that she had gone to the Police Station at about 7.00AM. She remained there till the complainant and other persons came and lodged the report with the police. Thus one of the injured PW-7 Bashira Bibi, daughter-in-law of 3 the complainant had already reached the Police Station in the morning, but no report was lodged by her for the reasons best known to her or the complainant. It is in her evidence that her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband had also reached the Police Station at 11.00AM but in case they reached the Police Station at 11.00AM, there is nothing on record to show that as to why the report was not lodged prior to 4.00PM. It is in the evidence of this witness that before her husband and other persons reached there, the accused persons had already reached there and had lodged the report with the police in regard to the same occurrence. PW- 8 Sher Mohammed, her husband had also admitted that his wife was present at the Police Station since morning but there is nothing on record that as to why the report was not lodged earlier with the police. He rather came up with the plea that they all came to the Police Station at 9.00AM and remained there at Police Station for 20 minutes, then went to Superintendent of Police, again came back and lodged the report. There is nothing to suggest in the statement of this witness or in the statement of complainant that the police refused to register the report when they went there and there is no occasion for them to firstly go to the Superintendent of Police for making a complaint and then lodge the report after about 11 hours and this delay has been considered by the learned trial Court as fatal since the accused party had already lodged a report with the police which fact has already been admitted by PW-7 and PW-8 that they are facing a criminal trial for the same offence for allegedly causing injury on one of the accused with Darat. This suggestion was admitted that they are facing criminal trial for the same occurrence. 4 Apart from the above, the learned trial Court had found several contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and have concluded that statement of these witnesses do not corroborate the testimony of one another. PW-5 Noor Navi, complainant, has stated that firstly he was given blow by Nek Mohammed with his head and he fell down and thereafter, Nek Mohammed gave blows to him with Danda. He thereafter stated that remaining accused persons came there and they gave beatings to his wife, son and daughter-in-law. He stated that Gulzar Bibi and Urmila Bibi gave stone blow over his head and he suffered injuries and Nasir Mohammed gave a blow on his arm with a bamboo and his arm was broken. PW-6 Nazira Bibi wife of the complainant has also stated about the blow given on the head by one of the accused Nek Mohammed with head on the person of her husband who fell down and thereafter stated that Nasir Mohammed came and gave blows with Danda on the person of her husband. However, her husband has stated that these blows were given by Nek Mohammed. She further stated that Gulzar Bibi and Urmila Bibi gave blows with Danda on his person. It was not so specifically stated by the complainant as PW-5. She has further stated that her husband was tied with rope and were given beatings by the accused persons. It was not specifically stated by PW-5 Noor Navi. PW-7 Bashira Bibi, daughter in-law of the complainant has only stated that the blow was given with head by Nek Mohammed on the person of father-in-law and she stated that blows with Danda was given by Gulzar Bibi on the person of her father-in-law and with stone by Urmila Bibi, which is contrary to the version given by the complainant. 5 She did not support the prosecution story fully and was declared as hostile and was allowed to be cross-examined by the learned A.P.P. for the State. PW-8 Sher Mohammed son of the complainant has also stated about the blow given with the head by Nek Mohammed on the person of his father but he came up with the plea that Gulzar Bibi gave stone blow on the person of his father and remaining acused with Danda, Darat, legs and fist blows. The other witnesses have not supported the version about the giving of beatings by Danda, Darat, legs and fist blows and there is no mention of Darat with which the beatings were allegedly given. Thus, there are various contradictions in the statements made by the prosecution witnesses and they do not corroborate the testimony of one another. It is in the evidence that a cross case was also registered against the complainant for the same offence for allegedly causing injuries upon the accused persons and they are facing a criminal case. Keeping in view the contradictions in the prosecution witnesses, delay in lodging the FIR and other infirmities, the learned trial Court had come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt and those findings cannot be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State of H.P. and the same is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents stand discharged forthwith. ( V.K. Ahuja ) July 21, 2008 Judge (BSS) 6