IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 634 of 2001. Decided on: February 25, 2009. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Bhag Singh and others. …..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General. For the respondents: None. ____________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral): The matter was listed for final arguments, none appeared on behalf of the respondents; however, arguments advanced by the learned Assistant Advocate General were heard. As a matter of fact, the respondents were tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in Criminal Case No.205-II/93 by the learned trial court vide its detailed judgment passed on 20.3.2001. Precisely the facts giving rise to the present appeal filed by the State are that on 5.10.1992 at about 7 A.M., the wife of the complainant Sukh Lal had gone to fetch the water from the village tap in village Nagrota Surian. She did not return for quite some time, then her husband Sukh Lal went to the tap. On reaching Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 there, he found respondent Bhag Singh present there. He was beating his wife alongwith lathi which she was having. Thereafter, respondent Bhag Singh is alleged to have given beatings to Sukh Lal and Karam Singh another respondent caught hold of him from the neck and throttled him. Respondent Gian Singh is alleged to have inflicted a blow with Lathi on Sukh Ram, which missed the target. Thereafter the son of complainant Gurpal Singh came there to save him from the clutches of the respondents. Even he was also dealt with fist and kick blows by the respondents and they threatened them to do away with their lives. A report in the daily diary was got recorded by the complainant at 12.30 noon in the police Station Haripur, on the basis of which a formal FIR was registered under the aforesaid sections after the medial examination of the complainant. The police investigated the matter and presented the challan against the respondents. The respondents were charge-sheeted. They denied the charges. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondents raised defence that they were falsely implicated in this case by the complainant and further that it was the complainant party who attacked them and they also lodged FIR, Bhag Singh sustained injuries and present case was a counter blast. The previous enmity inter-se the parties stands admitted and proved. 3 It has been stated by Sukh Lal complainant specifically that Bhag Singh being a Kanungo in the Revenue department while misusing his position got dropped the partition proceedings filed by him. Further his name was also got deleted from the Antodaya scheme on the complaint of Bhag Singh. He also admitted that Bhag Singh had made a complaint against the complainant that he was a follower of Bhindrawala and as such involved in the Indira Gandhi assassination case and this type of litigation was pending since 1986, which created bad relations between them. Insofar as the incident in question is concerned, there is no independent witness who is alleged to have witnessed the incident despite the fact that the complainant has stated that many persons were present on the spot who had witnessed the incident including Raj Kumar, who was also cited as a witness by the prosecution, but was not examined for the best reason known to the prosecution. The entire case hinges upon the statements of complainant PW2 Sukh Lal and his son Gurpal Singh (PW3). Both are interested witnesses. They have suppressed the fact of cross-case by the respondents. However, the complainant is stated to be injured but at the same time it has come in evidence that Bhag Singh had also sustained the injuries in the said incident. Whereas the case of the accused persons has been that, Smt. Vijay Kumari sister-in-law of Shri Bhag Singh respondent had gone to the village tap to fetch the water, where she was man-handled by the complainant and his wife. When respondent Bhag Singh reached 4 the spot, he was also given beatings and he sustained the injuries. To this effect, he has proved the medico legal certificate, which is Ext.DA on record. The next important fact which goes to the root of the case is that the prosecution did not examine the material witness wife of complainant Sukh Lal who was essential to unfold the prosecution case, therefore, the adverse inference is to be drawn. Further to substantiate the injuries to PW2 Sukh Lal, neither the Medical Officer was examined nor his medico legal certificate was proved in accordance with law. Even the Radiologist who is alleged to have conducted the X-ray was not examined. The witness Shri Ajeet Singh, Pradhan of the Panchayat concerned also did not support the case of the prosecution. In these circumstances, the testimonies of PWs 2 and 3 who are admittedly having inimical relations with the respondents cannot at all be relied upon to pass the conviction against the respondents. Thus, in the totality of the circumstances, I do not find it is a fit case for the reversal of the acquittal of the respondents passed by the learned trial court which is otherwise legally and factually sustainable. As such, the appeal is dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh), February 25, 2009. Judge. (Pds)