Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.227 of 2004. Date of Decision: October 18, 2010. State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Karnail Singh and another. ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant : Mr.A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate, vice Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral) : Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 2. The acquittal of the respondents has been assailed by the State, for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, on Ist August, 2003 at about 12.00 a.m., complainant Ajudhya Devi while administering medicine to her child in absence - 2 - of her husband was beaten up by the respondents, when they were stopped by her from using abusive language. 4. Respondent Karnail Singh is alleged to have caused injury with sharp edged weapon and respondent Sunil Kumar gave danda blow to her and she also alleged that she was fisticuffed by them, which caused injuries on her head, arm, leg and other parts of the body. Her son is alleged to have raised hue and cry. On this, one Sanjay Kumar and his father Duni Chand came to the spot and rescued her from the clutches of the respondents. After some time, her husband Kuldeep Kumar came there. He was bolted by the respondents inside the room. Thereafter complainant went to ward-Panch Rakesh Kumar. He came to the spot, unbolted the door and relieved the husband of the complainant. Thereafter, they informed PW5 Nek Chand, Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and also reported the matter to police. 5. The complainant was got medically examined. Her Medico Legal Certificate is Ex.PW1/A. On getting the report of the medical examination, a formal FIR Ex.PW7/C was registered. Police also prepared site - 3 - plan Ex.PW7/A with respect to the incident in question. During investigation, police also took into possession blood stained shirt Ex.P3 and Dupatta Ex.P4 of the complainant vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. The respondents also produced a sickle which was taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex.PW5/A. 6. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court, for the trial of the respondents. Respondents were accordingly charge-sheeted, for the offences aforesaid. At the end of trial, they were acquitted, on the ground of material contradictions with respect to the manner in which the alleged incident had taken place, also regarding the date and time and non-examination of the material witnesses, as such, State preferred the instant appeal. 7. The complainant in the initial version given to the police, on the basis of which FIR was formally registered, stated that Karnail Singh respondent had given her blow with a sharp edged weapon and respondent Sunil Kumar gave a danda blow and when she raised hue and cry, PW3 Sanjay Kumar and his father Duni Chand came and relieved her from their clutches, but when examined in the court, she did not - 4 - make any reference with respect to raising of any hue and cry by her son, by which the others including the co-villagers got attracted. This apart even, Sanjay Kumar examined as PW3, did not support the case of the prosecution in any manner. The son of complainant was also not examined, who could have afforded the corroboration to her version. She also did not make any reference with respect to the bolting of her husband inside the room, rather, she stated that her son had gone to call his father and he alongwith some neighbours came to the spot and the matter was reported to the ward-Panch, but even said ward Panch was also not examined by the prosecution to lend strength to the prosecution case. Pertinently, she herself stated that she had pushed her husband inside the room, so that respondents may not give beatings to him. She did not testify that she was relieved by other witnesses present on the spot, as stated in the FIR. She was also confronted with her statement with respect to the improvements made during her examination before the trial Court. This makes her version doubtful. - 5 - 8. PW4 Kuldeep Kumar, the husband of the complainant stated that the alleged incident took place on 30th July, 2003 at 10 p.m., as against Ist August, 2010 initially alleged by the complainant. He was not present on the spot, but he was informed by his son Aman Kumar about the incident. In cross- examination, he stated that when he reached the spot, the accused had already fled away. He also stated that he was bolted inside the room by his wife, whereas the initial allegation was that the respondents bolted him in the room, later he was got relieved with the intervention of the ward-Panch and other villagers. 9. In view of the above material contradictions, the acquittal of the respondents is borne out from the record, for this reason no interference is called for in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 10. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of this case. October 18, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.