IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.Appeal 571 of 2001 Decided on 29. 07 . 2008 State of H P …….Appellant Versus Piare Lal & others ……. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh.J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 .No. For the appellant : Mr. J.S.Guleria, Law Officer. For the Respondent Mr. J. L. Bhardwaj, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J.(oral) Respondents were tried and acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 147, 451 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, against which the State has filed the present appeal. In brief the prosecution case is that on 9.7.1997 at about 8.30 a.m. respondents came armed with sticks in the compound of the house of the complainant and started beating Kewal Ram, his wife Tulsa and sons Amrit Pal and Balbir Chand. The complainant and his family members, to seek shelter, went inside into their house but the respondents are alleged to have broken the door and gave beating to the entire family members of the complainant. The matter 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?yes. 2 was reported to the police by PW3 Kewal Ram. He got recorded his statement Ex.P1, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered under the aforesaid sections. PW8 Devi Dass Investigating Officer visited the spot and prepared the site plan Ex.PW8/A and recorded statements of the witnesses. Kewal Ram produced sticks Ex.M1 and Ex.M2, which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.P2. Gurdass, Lalita and Beena respondents also produced sticks, which were also taken into possession by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/B. PW2 Doctor K.Nath medically examined Kewal Ram and found simple injuries on his person and issued the medico-legal- certificate Ex.PW2/B. Injured Balbir Chand was also medically examined by PW2 and found simple injuries on his person and issued medico-legal-certificate Ex.PW2/A. Amrit Kumar had also sustained the simple injuries and his medico-legal-certificate is Ex.PW2/D. Police also took photographs of the house of the complainant. After completing the investigation challan was presented in the court for trial of the respondents. Notice of accusation was put to the respondents, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondents were also examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Case of the respondents was that there was an old litigation with the complainant party and there was also a boundary dispute between them and the complainant had tried to take the 3 possession of their land. A cross case with respect to same incident was lodged by the respondents vide FIR No.123/97 dated 9.7.1997 registered in police station Nalagarh. After complete trial in this case, the respondents were acquitted on the ground that the prosecution evidence is contradictory and was not worth inspiring confidence. Shri Guleria, learned Law Officer has vehementally argued that the learned trial court did not give much importance to the statement of the injured witnesses and reasoning given are manifestly unreasonable and unsustainable. Contra, Shri Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and reappraised the evidence on record very carefully. In my opinion, the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the respondents cannot be disturbed for the reason that Piyare Lal had also sustained grievous injuries i.e. fracture of nasal bone and fracture to both Tibia and Ulna (left) lower leg as indicated in his medical-legal-certificate Ex.PW2/G and he was referred to PGI Chandigarh, his injuries are not explained and a cross case of the same incident, registered vide FIR No.123/97 was also registered against the complainant as is evident from the certified copy of the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, placed on record. The prosecution story in FIR No.123 above was that the respondents were weeding the maize crop in their field and the 4 complainant party interrupted them, on this Piare Lal objected to it, the complainant party got annoyed and gave beating to them. Piare Lal sustained grievous injuries by a blow of axe given by Kewal Ram complainant. This version finds corroboration from the statement of Smt.Tulsa wife of the complainant Kewal Ram. She has admitted in her cross-examination that regarding the same incident a criminal case was also pending against them. PW8 Devi Dass Investigating Officer stated that when he had gone to hospital for the medical of the complainant Kewal Ram and his wife Tulsa, he also saw the respondents and his family members present in the hospital and he got FIR of Piare Lal registered. He stated that the injuries sustained by Kewal Ram were of superficial whereas son of Piare Lal was also admitted in the hospital but PW8 could not say as to who was the aggressor. PW6 Balbir Chand has admitted in his cross-examination that the complainant party was convicted with respect to the FIR lodged by Piare Lal. It also stands admitted by PWs 1 and 2 that there is also civil litigation pending with respect to the land inter-se the parties. PW6 Balbir Chand was also an accused in the case filed by Piare Lal with respect to the same incident. Thus it appears that in order to escape the liability in the criminal case filed by Piare Lal respondent, Kewal Ram has concocted a false story in this case. Their rivalry appears to be quite old. The judgment Ex.D-5 State versus Kewal Ram also shows that complainant Kewal Ram, his wife and his sons were convicted and sentenced by the SDJM Nalagarh, District Solan which was upheld in appeal (Ex.D4) 5 On the critical examination of the aforesaid evidence, I find no force in this appeal. The prosecution case lacks probity. The grievous injuries on the person of Piare Lal were not explained. The very story of giving beating in the house of the complainant all the more has become suspicious in view of the subsequent FIR No.123/97 registered by Piare Lal in which the complainant party was convicted and sentenced. Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid, the acquittal of the respondents cannot be converted into conviction, as such the appeal sans merit is accordingly dismissed. July 29,2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (D)