IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.536 of 2003 Date of decision: 05.07.2010 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Moti Ram & others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja, J (Oral). This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Sections 148,452,323 read with Section 149 IPC against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kangra dated 27.5.2003 vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 4.10.1997 at about 8.45 P.M., a report was lodged with the police by one Om Parkash that he is running a tea-Pakora Shop at Tehsil Chowk, Kangra. The shop of his brother Moti Ram is adjoining his shop. In the evening at about 8.00 P.M., his brother Moti Ram respondent came to his shop and started giving abuses to him and gave threats to him. Thereafter, son of Moti Ram Jiwan & Goldy Naresh and his servants Ramesh and Dharam Chand came there. The said Jiwan was having a rod in his hand and he started giving him beatings while the remaining were having Dandas in their hands and he suffered injuries on his head and other parts of his body. He further Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes alleged that Ravinder Kumar @ Koka, Desh Raj and Jaishi Ram his servants, had rescued him. The accused left the place giving abuses and threats to take away his life. On this, a report was made to the police and a case was registered and after investigation challan was filed and the respondents were tried by the learned trial Court under the aforementioned sections, leading to their acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. The first point taken by the learned trial Court in disbelieving the statement of the complainant was that he had alleged in the report lodged with the police that Ravinder Kumar, Desh Raj and Jaishi Ram his servants rescued him and they were not his servants, but they were in fact related to him. 5. The complainant appeared in the witness box as PW-1. In cross examination, he admitted that Ravinder Kumar is his real brother in law, Desh Raj is his uncle’s son and Jaishi Ram is his real nephew. This clearly shows that all these three witnesses named by him who have allegedly rescued him at that time were closely related to him but in order to make them as independent witnesses, he alleged in the report lodged with the police that they were his servants. This had weighed in the mind of the learned trial Court in disbelieving the version of the complainant. He admits that Moti Ram’s wife had lodged a complaint against him and his brother Purshotam which was pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharamshala. This clearly shows the enmity in between them. He also admitted that Moti Ram wants to take the shop and both are running the same business and the relations between the parties are strained. They are also having pending litigation, and, therefore, the evidence has to be appreciated with more care and caution. 6. PW-1 admits in cross examination that his clothes were blood stained but these were not taken in possession by the police. In case, these were blood stained, these were required to be taken in possession and, as such, the statement made by the complainant becomes doubtful. 7. PW-2 Ravinder Kumar, who is related to the complainant and is alleged to be an eye witness, has stated that Om Parkash was given beatings with Puni and Danda which was never the case of the complainant that he was given beatings with Puni or Danda. He stated that he had rescued him but could not state about the other persons present there. In case he was present at the spot and their names were also known to him, there was no difficulty in telling the names of the persons who were present there which suggests that he was not present at the spot. He did not refer to any injury having been inflicted with legs, fists and Dandas by the accused or other persons present there which clearly leads to the inference that his presence at the spot appears to be doubtful. 8. PW-3 Ravi Kumar stated that he was only a witness of recovery of Dandas and is not an eye witness. He admitted that the complainant was his real uncle. PW-5 Desh Raj has stated that all the accused persons came there and Jiwan Singh was having a Puni while Ramesh was having a Danda and they started giving beatings to the complainant. This was not so stated by the complainant that Jiwan was having a Puni or Ramesh was having a Danda and there is nothing that the injuries were inflicted with legs and fist blows also as stated by the complainant. His statement does not corroborate the statement made by the complainant and as such, his statement becomes doubtful. He firstly denied but later on admitted that he had a dispute with Moti and a written compromise was also effected which is Ex.DA and bears his signatures which clearly shows his interestedness. He admitted that the complainant is his real Taya’s son. He denied his knowledge whether any criminal cases were going on in between the parties. He came up with plea in cross examination that Omy (Om Parkash) was also having Puni in his hand which was not so stated by the complainant or other witnesses. He also stated that he was not aware of the cause of dispute. 9. From the above discussion of the evidence, it is clear that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were full of contradictions and infirmities and those were rightly not believed by the learned trial Court. 10. In view of the above it follows that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondent cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 11. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. July 5, 2010 (V.K.Ahuja),J. (SDS)