Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No.435 of 2003 Dated of Decision : September, 21, 2010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of Himachal Pradesh. ……… Appellant. Versus Bhagat Ram and Others …….. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General, for the appellant. For the Respondents : Mr. Dinesh Kumrar Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (oral): The respondents were tried for the offences punishable under Section 147, 149, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 83/2 of 2000, decided on 27.03.2003. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant was serving as a Conductor in Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla. He was on leave and had gone to his village. On July 1, 2000 around 1.30 p.m., the complainant was working in his field. - 2 - Some more persons were also working nearby in their respective fields. It is alleged that suddenly the respondents came there, caught hold of him and gave beatings. Respondent Bhagat Ram is alleged to have given a ‘danda’ blow and other fisticuffed him. Thus, the matter was reported to the police. He made his statement Ex. PW1/A, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which culminated into FIR Ex. PW 7/A. 4. Police visited the spot and prepared the site plan of the place of the alleged incidence and the medico legal certificate of the injured was obtained. Later, the ‘danda’ Ex. P-3 was also taken into possession. Finding a case under the aforesaid sections against the respondents, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 5. At the end of trial, the respondents were acquitted on the grounds that Smt. Kalawati and Urmila Devi were not mentioned by the complainant, initially in his statement, but later he is alleged to have exaggerated his version and implicated them and further that the motive behind the alleged quarrel was not explained by the prosecution and also that the - 3 - parties in the instant case were in litigation for the last about 15-16 years with respect to the land in question. There was also a dispute with respect to the boundary of Khasra No. 76 belonging to the complainant and Khasra No. 80 owned and possessed by the respondents. Civil litigation was going on and the stay is also alleged to have been issued against the complainant. Thus the case against the respondents was held to be shrouded with suspicion. 6. In fact the complainant informed the police with respect to the alleged incident on the same day, which fact was noted in the daily diary No. 14 dated 1.7.2000, wherein he had only mentioned the name of Bhagat Ram. 7. Thereafter police moved an application for the medical examination of the complainant that too on the same day, wherein the names of Gopal Singh, Bali Ram and Bhagat Ram find mentioned. The complainant was got medically examined. There were four injuries on his person which were simple in nature. But in FIR he roped the ladies in addition to the male members who gave beatings. When examined in the Court, he simply stated that ladies had only instigated - 4 - the other accused persons. The very presence of the aforesaid ladies on the spot is doubtful and the findings of the learned trial court to this effect that there is a general tendency in the group rivalry to involve all the family members and other interested persons because of the revengeful attitude irrespective of the fact that they were present on the spot or not appears to be correct. 8. In so far as the role of other respondents are concerned, PW3 Budhi Singh has not supported the case of the prosecution. Whereas PW4 Puran Chand, PW5 Jia Lal and PW6 Mukesh, who were already present on the spot, stated that though as to who were the aggressor was not known to them but they were categoric in their version that the complainant sustained injuries because of the beatings given by respondents No. 1 to 3., which substantiated the version of the injured witnesses, thus in my opinion the acquittal of ladies (respondents No. 4 and 5) is borne out from the record and is upheld but I find that the acquittal of respondents No. 1 to 3 passed by the learned trial Court is perverse. Therefore, set aside and - 5 - they stand convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the parties have reconciled the civil and other criminal matters pending in the trial Court. It is submitted that Bhagat Ram is aged about 64 years and the other accused namely Bali Ram Gopal are more than 40 years, therefore, the benefit of probation be given to them. Thus, keeping in view their age and also the fact that they are not previous convicts, as such, the above named three respondents Bhagat Ram, Beli Ram and Gopal are accordingly admonished by giving them the benefit of Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act. The appeal is partly allowed and disposed of. (Surinder Singh) Judge September 21, 2010. Pritam