Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.259 of 2001. Dated of Decision: August 22, 2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Parkash Chand and others. ……. 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. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. Surinder Singh,J (oral) : The learned trial court tried and convicted the respondents under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each. The respondents challenged their conviction and sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in Criminal Appeal No.2-S/10 of 1997, which was allowed and the respondents were acquitted, on the grounds that there was material contradictions in the FIR and the statement of the injured PW1 Amar Chand and further that the statements of the alleged eye witnesses Nand Lal Hari Kishan and Het Ram did not inspire confidence - 2 - and the other independent and disinterested witnesses were not examined to lend strength to the prosecution case. Since there has been material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and also the fact that the recovery witnesses had materially contradicted, therefore, a doubt was caused on the authenticity of the prosecution case. The State has assailed the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the ground that the learned court below brushed aside the cogent and reliable evidence of the complainant, which was duly corroborated by the eye witnesses and also the medical evidence. The learned trial court had rightly convicted and sentenced the respondents. The judgment of acquittal is perverse and Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer stressed to restore the judgment of the learned trial court. Shri Vinay Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that there was a cross case regarding the instant incident. An FIR was also registered by the respondents, which fact was not brought to the notice of the learned trial court, but in appeal, an application was moved under Section 391 read with Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prove the medico legal certificates of the respondents and - 3 - registration of the FIR against the complainant, which was admitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, as is evident from the order dated 29.9.2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, though not mentioned in his judgment but if the aforesaid facts are looked into in view of the above mentioned background the whole case of the prosecution falls to doldrums, making the prosecution story highly doubtful and otherwise also the prosecution case lacks probity, the contradictions which are material raises a doubt on its authenticity. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the evidence on record. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 8.4.93, at 7.45 A.M., PW1 Amar Chand went to fetch the water from the bowri (a water source in village Banabal). On his way near the aforesaid bowri he was way laid by the respondents Prakash Chand and Krishan Lal. In the meantime, Bali Ram and Pachhu Devi also came there with dandas and gave beatings to Amar Chand. Consequently, Amar Chand sustained the injuries, who raised hue and cry. Nand Lal, Het Ram and Hari Kishan came to the spot and rescued him. FIR Ex.PW6/A was lodged in the police station, Kotkhai. Amar Chand was medically examined by PW5 Dr. A.K. Kaundal on the - 4 - same day. He noticed two injuries on his person and on X-ray of Injury No.1, fracture of proximal index finger was detected and the doctor issued medico legal certificate Ex.PW5/A. In fact the incident, to which the complainant in this case claims to have taken place was in the morning at 7.45 a.m. regarding which PW1 Amar Chand had lodged the FIR No.49 of 1993. The another incident took place on the same day at 5.45 p.m. regarding which respondents lodged the FIR No.50 of 1993 under Sections 147,325 and 506 I.P.C. when the complainant party in retaliation appears to have attacked the respondents. In the second incident, Krishan Lal sustained minor injuries, the copy of FIR No.50/1993 is available on file of learned Additional Sessions Judge. Thus it has been seen that both the incidents although took place on the same day but there was time gap of about eleven hours, therefore, the FIR lodged by the respondents is with respect to a different incident though connected with the first incident. In so far as the evidence in the instant case is concerned, it requires to be reappraised quite cautiously and minutely because the evidence on record points out towards the fact that both the parties are not pulling on well and nurtures enmity against each other, because Prakash Chand - 5 - respondent got the landed property through his mother in the village of the complainant. The complainant Amar Chand in his report Ext.PW5/A to the police, stated that respondent Prakash Chand and his brother Krishan Lal gave him slaps and fist blows then threw him on the ground, in the meantime Bali Ram respondent came there and gave him a danda blow which caused the fracture of his finger, thus on raising the hue and cry Nand Lal, Hari Krishan and Het Ram came there for his rescue. But as PW1 he has stated that all the accused came together and Bali ram respondent gave him a danda blow. In cross-examination he stated that he was thrown on the ground and then he was given beatings which fact was not so recorded in the FIR. He further stated that he fell on the ground on his hand. He also admitted that respondent Prakash got the landed property through her other in their village but denied on account of this he developed inimical relations with him. He further stated that Nand Lal was first to arrive at the spot who intervened and when other witnesses namely Krishan and Het Ram came there the respondents were beating him. He did not say anything about respondent Panchu Devi in his statement nor any role has been attributed to her in the FIR. He was also confronted with the contents of FIR regarding the manner in which he - 6 - was alleged to have been caught by the respondents. He stuck to his improved version given in the court. PW2 Nand Lal stated that complainant was not pushed to the ground but he was being beaten up by the respondents while he was standing. He further stated that Amar Chand was only given one or two blows by Prakash and Krishan Lal which were exchanged by him. He was confronted with his statement given to the police where there was no mention of giving any danda blow by Bali Ram to Amar Chand. He also stated that many persons Mamta, Sharda, Rama Nand and Budhi Ram were present there but none out of them were examined. PW3 Hari Krishan stated that Nand Lal had reached the spot earlier to him. In examination in chief, he stated in favour of PW1 but in cross- examination he deposed that he was also given fisticuffs by Prakash Chand and Krishan Lal. He embroiled a new story which was not even initially alleged regarding giving beatings to him. He admitted the presence of about 15/20 persons of his village present at the spot. He also stated that he was psychological perturbed during those days. PW4 Het ram, has stated that Prakash Chand and his brother Krishan Lal both gave one blow each to Amar Chand. No one gave any danda blow to him. - 7 - According to him his uncle Jit Ram and his father were also present alongwith many other villagers. As far as the recovery of danda is concerned he being a recovery witness did not know from where danda Ex.P1 was taken into possession nor PW3 Hari Krishan says anything about the recovery. Thus, it has been seen that the complainant appears to have exaggerated the version and the real genesis of the dispute has been suppressed. There are material contradictions in their statements of the prosecution witnesses which goes to the root of the case. The prosecution examined only the interested witnesses whereas many other disinterested and independent witnesses were available, who could have unfolded the true story. Therefore, the prosecution in the given circumstances cannot be said to have proved the prosecution case beyond a reasonable doubt against the respondents, therefore the judgment of acquittal passed by the first appellate court requires no interference, as such the appeal filed by the State is dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by each of them at any stage during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. August 22, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge. - 8 -