HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. A. No. 84 of 2000 Reserved on: 01.03.2008 Decided on: 12.03.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh ………Appellant Versus Nandi Lal and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondents None. V.K. Ahuja, J: This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr. P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. dated 28.11.1997, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 325/323/504/34 IPC. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on the night of intervening of 28/29.05.1994, the roof of the thatched hut of complainant Gian Chand was blown away on account of hailstorm. On the next morning the complainant, his wife and his daughter were collecting the grass of the thatched roof. All the accused persons came there and prevented the complainant from collecting the grass and gave them beatings with kick and fit blows, while Nand Lal accused gave blows with stick on the head of the complainant. Pawan Kumar 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. accused give fist blow on the face of the complainant and the lower jaw of the complainant was fractured and two teeth were dislocated. On this report, a case was registered and challan was filed before the ld. trial Court who tried the respondents, resulting to their acquittal. their acquittal. Heard. The submissions made by the ld. Law Officer for the appellant were that there was sufficient evidence on record consisting of statement of the complainant and other evidence which was wrongly not relied upon by the learned trial court and, thus, the findings are liable to be reversed. On appraisal of record of the case, it is clear that the complainant appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and corroborated his case as to how he has given beatings with kicks, fits and stick by the accused persons, resulting in dislocation of his two teeth and braking of his jaw. Two witnesses examined by the prosecution namely Dhani Ram and his wife are from the same village from where the accused belongs. He has stated that he had seen Dhani Ram and his wife for the first time when this occurrence took place. He also stated that he never reported to the police that jaw and teeth were dislocated on account of fist blow given by the accused Pawan Kumar. He was confronted with the report where he stated that he sustained injuries on his right hand on account of beatings with stick by the accused Nand Lal. He denied that he and his father made false report to the police in respect demolition of cow shed which was found to be false and he had further apologized to PW-4 Dhani Ram, who was from the same village to which the accused belongs. PW-4, Dhani Ram denied that if occurrence had taken place in his presence. He stated that he is known to the complainant from his childhood whereas the complainant stated that he had seen Dhani Ram on that day for the first time which clearly shows that the complainant had deposed falsely. PW-4, Dhani Ram had further stated that he knows the complainant and his wife for the last 20-25 years and has been purchasing leather regularly for his business. In the report it was mentioned that the occurrence was also witnessed by several persons of village Jaroda, but no person was produced from that village. Therefore, the evidence shows that the statement of Gian Chand complainant is not reliable. The wife of the complainant namely Roshni Devi has admitted indirectly that the report had been lodged by her father-in-law against the accused. In view of the credibility of the statement of Gian Chand and on the basis of the contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the ld. trial Court had come to the conclusion that the statement of the complainant is not trustworthy and it has not been corroborated by any independent witness. The said findings recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse, calling for interference by this Court. The net result of discussion is that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State of H.P., which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bounds of the respondents stand discharged. ( V. K. Ahuja) Judge March 12th, 2008. (brb)