IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.715 of 2001 Date of decision:24-10-2008. ______________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Sandeep Kumar and others. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja,J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Whether approved for reporting1? No For the appellant: Mrs. Subh Mahajan, Dy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr.N.D.Sharma, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja,J(Oral). This appeal has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the Court learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan dated 25.7.2001, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 332/506 read with Section 34 IPC. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 21.8.1994, the complainant Mela Ram, Accountant in the Central Bank of India, Solan lodged a report with the police that on 20.8.1994 at about 4.15 PM he was going towards Saproon after finishing his office work for collection of loans of the Bank. He stated that when he was going near the Railway Line, all the respondents met him on the way. One of the accused removed his spects while, the other respondent gave him blows with fists and slaps on his face and his one tooth was broken and the other two teeth became loose. They also gave him threats to take his life. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation the challan was filed as against the respondents under sections 353/332/34 IPC read with Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 Section 34 IPC. On consideration, the learned trial Court framed charge as against the respondents under Section 332 read with Section 32 IPC. The respondents were tried by the learned trial Court leading to their acquittal. have heard Mrs. Subh Mahajan, learned Dy. Advocate General for the appellant and Mr. N.D.Sharma, leaned counsel for the respondent and have perused the record of the case. On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that the prosecution had examined eight witnesses to substantiate its case. The complainant has been examined as PW-1, who has stated that at about 4/4-15 PM when he was going towards Village Anji for collection of dues of the Bank, all the respondents met him. One of the accused removed his spects and the remaining accused started giving fist blow on his mouth. His one tooth was broken and two got loose. He further stated that the accused persons gave him threatening that in case he made a complaint to the police, they will take his daughters forcibly. He stated that he was having keys of the Bank with him and the respondents tried to take them. Some members of the public came there and rescued him and then he lodged the report Ex.PW-1/A and his broken tooth was also taken in possession by the police. In cross-examination, he has admitted that earlier he had some dispute with one R.K.Kapila and two of the respondents are the sons of the said R.K.Kapila. He came up with the plea that the accused persons tried to snatch his purse but he was confronted with his police statement wherein he had not mentioned this fact. In his statement he has stated that threat was given to carrying his daughters forcibly but in the report lodged with the police that he stated that he was given threats to take his life. He was not confronted with his statement made to the police by the learned defence counsel so that the benefit of the improvements made in 3 the statement could be taken by the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he wanted to implicate the accused in a false case. In his statement he had stated that at the relevant time none was present at the spot though subsequently some persons came there. Out of those persons, the prosecution has examined two persons PW-3 Naresh Kumar and PW-7 Tajender Singh. PW-3 Naresh Kumar is running a tea shop and PW-7 Tajinder Singh was working in some restaurant. Both these witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. Nothing has been brought on record to show as to why they will depose falsely in favour of the accused persons and as against the prosecution. Coming to the medical evidence. PW-4 Dr. M.M.Bhalla found abrasion on the inner side of the upper lip and he stated that the right incisor was missing from his cavity and central incisor is loose but in its cavity, there appears to be no injury to gum and the upper lip is not swollen. He was referred to the dental surgeon, whose opinion can be said to be very material since the injury in question was dental injury. The Dental Surgeon Dr. R.K.Garg stated that he examined the injured and no dental injury was found by him on the person of the injured and he issued M.L.C. Ex.PW-8/A in this regard. He did not state that there was any injury or any tooth had been broken and two of the teeth having become loose as stated by the injured. Thus, there is no corroboration to the ocular version given by the complainant either from the oral or from the medical evidence examined in this case. It is true that the statement of the complainant/injured, if found truthful, can be relied upon but the statement of the complainant is not such which can be said to be sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond any reasonable doubt. 4 In view of the above discussion, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt cannot 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 appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. 24th October, 2008 (V.K.Ahuja),J. (sds)