IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 596 of 2002 Date of decision: 12.03.2010 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Fateh Mohd. & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Mehar Chand vice Mr. Jeet Ram Poswal, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, dated 5.4.2002, vide which he acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them under Sections 452, 325, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 23.11.1997, at about 1.30 P.M., a report was lodged with the police by one Latif Mohd. in which he alleged that today at 12.45 P.M., he was present alongwith his family members in his house. The respondents came there duly armed with lathi and kulhari and he 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 went inside his room, brought his gun for his safety and fired in the air. At this moment when he fired from the gun in the air, his gun was snatched by one Ashmeer Deen and Alamgeer, respondent, gave a blow on his right arm. Fateh Mohd. gave an axe blow on his head and Ashmeer Deen gave a blow with lathi. It was further alleged that when he was given beatings, his mother, his brother Hashmat and his wife came there, who were also beaten by the respondents. He also alleged about the some previous dispute in between the parties and threats given by the respondents to take his life. He alleged that he was rescued by Abdul Razak. On this report, a case was registered. The challan was filed before the learned trial Court who tried the respondents, leading to their acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. On appraisal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, it is clear that the learned trial Court has observed that the sequence of events leading to the inflicting of injuries have been given differently by the different eye witnesses including the complainant and for that reason mainly evidence of the prosecution was not relied upon. I may make a brief reference to the testimony of the material witnesses. The complainant in this case has been examined as PW-1, who clearly stated that the accused persons came to their house, who firstly gave beatings to his brother, not named by him and his brother and then he fired in the air and thereafter, he was given beatings with axe and danda. He further stated that he was rescued by Abdul Razak and Amin at that time. While leaving the 3 place, the respondents had also given a threat to take his life. His mother Sukhi Bagum has been examined as PW-2, who stated that her younger son Hasmat Ali was sitting in the courtyard and when he was given beatings Latif fired in the air and he was given injuries by the accused persons. She also stated that she was given lathi blow by Billu, whereas the version given by the complainant was that she was given beatings by all the respondents, then he fired in the air and then he was given blows. She also stated that Yamin Ali and Abdul Razak were there, meaning thereby that both these persons were eye witnesses, but only Yamin Ali has been examined by the prosecution. Complainant’s younger brother Hasmat Ali has been examined as PW-4, who has stated that the accused persons came to their house and immediately started giving beatings to his brother Latif and when he prevented them he was given blow over his head with an axe by Fateh and Alamgeer also gave beatings. However, the complainant has given the version that he was not beaten firstly but firstly his mother was given beatings. Then he got fired in the air and then he was given beatings. He further stated that when he had rescued the complainant, he was also given beatings and he also tried to rescue them. He stated that Yamin Ali and Abdul Razak came there, but only Yamin Ali has been examined and not Abdul Razak. The prosecution has also examined the said Yamin Ali as PW-3, who has stated that the accused persons came there and firstly gave beatings to Sukhi Bagum, mother of the complainant. Then Latif fired from the gun in the air and he was given beatings and there is no mention of any beatings given to the brother of the complainant. He stated that Hasmat Ali and his wife rescued the 4 complainant, but there is no mention of the wife of Hasmat Ali in the testimonies of the witnesses or her presence at the spot. Apart from the above, PW-2 Sukhi Bagum has stated that the accused persons gave abuses for about half an hour. But PW-4 is specific that no abuses were given, while other witnesses have also not stated that any abuses were given at that time. There is statement made by the complainant in regard to the threats given by the respondents, which has also not been substantiated by either of the witnesses. Keeping in view the contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses and the infirmity or the manner in which they have given different versions in their statements, makes their presence at the spot doubtful. The findings holding that the guilt of the accused was not established beyond any reasonable doubt, cannot be said to be 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 appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ), March 12, 2010 Judge (BSS) 5