IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 360 of 2003 Date of Decision: 3rd August, 2010 __________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Appellant. Versus Sher Singh & others ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Ms. Ruma Kaushik Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent: Shri Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). The State is aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur acquitting the respondents for offences under Section 325, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story is that on 13.2.1997 Shri Dalip Chand alongwith his brother Yash Pal PW5 had gone to Mandi to drop their sister. Around 2.30 P.M. when they returned to their house situated at village Bheran and when they alighted from the bus and reached near the Primary School, the accused persons/respondents assaulted them 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 with darat and hockey sticks. Dalip Chand PW1 sustained injuries on his right leg and other parts of the body and his brother Yash Pal PW5 sustained injuries on his left leg. This incident was witnessed by Rani Devi wife of Sushil Kumar who was a teacher and Sushma Devi another teacher who has not been examined by the prosecution. 3. The Court, on the evidence, holds that though both the injured i.e. PW1 Dalip Chand and PW5 Yash Pal have corroborated the manner in which the injuries were inflicted on them, but further holds that relations of the complainant as also his brother with the respondents are not cordial for the last more than a decade as there are land dispute(s) inter se between the parties and as such, their testimonies are required to be considered with care and caution. The prosecution case was to be corroborated on material aspects by PW3 Rani Devi and Sushma who has been given up. Rani Devi while appearing as a witness did not support the case of prosecution and Sushma was given up, for the reasons best known to the prosecution. In these circumstances, the Court invokes the principal that it is not safe to rely on the testimony of the injured. 4. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant and Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General urges that in this case the injured is the best witness to depose about the facts of the case. The testimony of an injured person cannot be doubted, when it is corroborated on all material particulars including medical evidence. This is the general proposition of law which cannot be doubted. However, when the incident in this case is considered in its totality, as two independent witnesses do not prove the occurrence, no reliance can be placed on 3 evidence of the injured. The doctor can only say about the injuries which he found on the body of the injured, but he cannot testify as to who inflicted them. There is nothing in the evidence of PW3 Rani Devi to show that she is lying. Giving up Sushma Devi remains a mystery. To say that the prosecution case has not been conducted in accordance with law, would be stating the obvious. In these circumstances there is no other evidence on record to establish the complicity of the respondent. No effort has been made by the prosecution to lead the best evidence on record. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged. August 3rd, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge