Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.560 of 2001. Dated of Decision: July 30,2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Leela Devi & another. ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the Respondents : Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate. Surinder Singh,J(oral): The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents under Sections 325, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal case No.31/2 of 97 dated 23.6.2000, decided by the trial court. In short, the allegations on which the respondents put on trial were that on 2.5.97, Parma Nand complainant alongwith his wife Jamna Devi, daughters Meena and Kishu were harvesting the wheat crop in the morning around 6 a.m. In the meantime, the respondents came to the spot, armed with dandas and started beating him, with a result he sustained various bleeding injuries and caused a fracture of his leg. Even his daughters, wife when intervened, they also sustained the injuries at the hands of the respondents. The matter was reported to the police and the statement Ex.PW12/C of the complainant was recorded under Section 154 of - 2 - the Code of Criminal Procedure and a case under the aforesaid sections was registered. The complainant was medically examined. Doctor found a compound fracture of his left leg and contused lacerated wound on the right leg and lacerated wound on the right hand. To this effect, medico-legal certificate Ex.PW8/A was issued. X-ray was also obtained. The police visited the spot, prepared site plan Ex.PW12/A of the alleged place of incident and also recovered dandas and blood stained clothes. The police also recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the challan, it was presented in the court for trial. The respondents were charge-sheeted. They denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondents were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have denied their art and part in the alleged incident. Though pleaded their false implication in the case, on the ground of enmity and due to old litigation, but did not lead any evidence in defence. At the end of the trial, the respondents were acquitted on the ground that the prosecution evidence is full of contradiction and not worth inspire confidence. Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer has vehemently argued that the complainant could not be examined because he died of his natural death during the investigation of this case, but the other witnesses, who had witnessed the occurrence have fully supported the prosecution case. Shri Anuj Nag, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned trial court. - 3 - I have given my thoughtful considerations to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully examined the evidence on record. PW1 Jamna Devi, wife of the complainant and her two daughters, namely PW2 Meena and PW4 Gomti alongwith the complainant were alleged to have present in their field harvesting their crop but not proved to be so at the time of occurrence on the spot. On this score, the evidence is dilatory. According to PW1 Jamna Devi, her cattle went towards the field of the respondents, when her husband went to remove them, the respondents started beating him and caused the injuries as aforesaid to him. When she went to her husband, she was also given beatings and she was rescued by PW5 Dhani Ram. In the meantime, Leela and Bharat Bhushan also came there. She has admitted in her cross- examination that there are about 40 cases pending in the different courts, which were filed by her husband against the respondents and both the parties because of the chronic history of litigation, had inimical relations. PW2 Meena Kumari, though in her examination-in-chief has made the similar statement to that of her mother, but in cross- examination, she stated that she reached the spot after about seven minutes alongwith her mother and sister Gomti and saw her father crying because of the fracture of his leg. After about 15 minutes Dhani Ram and Amar Dev PWs came there. She did not say that her mother or for that matter her sister were given beatings by the respondents as alleged in the FIR, which means when the alleged occurrence had taken place, there was none out of the prosecution witnesses on the spot and they reached later when there was no - 4 - incident of beatings which fact finds mention in the statement of PW4 Gomti that she reached on the spot after about seven minutes of the alleged incident and the other witnesses came even there after about 15 minutes. PW3 is Amar Dev, who was allegedly called by PW Meena and stated that he was informed about the beatings of his father and reached the spot, the respondents were not present there and in his cross- examination, he has admitted that the complainant Parma Nand has sustained the injuries on account of fall. PWs 1 to 4 have admitted that PW5 Dhani Ram has their land in his cultivation. Said Dhani ram has admitted that his 4-5 cases are pending in the court against the respondents and he was not in speaking terms with them. PW7 Ram Lal has stated that he did not know about the incident and had deposed whatever he had heard from the daughter of the complainant. PW9 Rup Dei admittedly had also appeared as a witness in some of the cases against the respondent. She is a recovery witness of the clothes of the injured. PW11 Hari Chand is son of PW5, who is already in litigation with the respondents and Rup Dei PW9 is his sister-in-law. He is in service. According to him on that day he was on leave, but there is no document on record to substantiate this fact. He is alleged to have reached the spot on the request of the daughter of the complainant. On the critical examination of the evidence aforesaid, it is apparent that both the parties are in litigation for the last more than a decade. The prosecution witnesses are either close relatives or are locked in litigation with the respondents. There are material contradictions in their statements which goes to the root of the case. The defence stands probablised in view of the statement of PW 3 Amar Dev. Even PW8 Dr. Rajesh Kashyap has admitted that the injuries in question could be caused due to a fall. Therefore, in these circumstances, a substantial doubt has arisen about the complicity of the respondents with the alleged crime, - 5 - more specifically when both the parties have a long history of litigation. The false implication of the respondents in this case cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial court are borne out from the record and requires no interference, accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. July 30, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.