1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.165 of 2003 Date of Decision: 7th April, 2010 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Raj Kumari and another Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1?No. For the appellant: Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Varinder Kumar Verma, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The present appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.6.2002 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P. in Case No.205-2 of 2000, titled as State of H.P. vs. Smt. Raj Kumari and another. As per the case of the prosecution on 16.7.2000 complainant, Smt. Sunila Devi (PW-1) was going to meet her relative near block office. When she reached near the house of Amarnath, accused No.2 Kanta Devi and his daughter-in-law Raj Kumari, accused No.1, wrongly restrained her from using the common path. The accused persons caught her from her hair and started giving beatings to the complainant. Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 Hearing her cries, Shri Karam Singh, Sheela, Ranjna and Ramesh reached the spot and rescued her. The matter was reported to the police. The investigation was carried out by HC Data Ram (Pw-5) and complainant was got medically examined from Dr. Sukhvinder Singh (PW-7), who issued MLC (Ext.PW-7/A). With the completion of the investigation, the challan was filed in the Court for trial and the accused were charged for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 323, 506 read with Section 34, IPC, to which they did not plead guilty and were put to trial. From the statement of PW-1, Smt. Ranjna (PW- 2), Smt. Sheela Devi (PW-3), it is evident that there is animosity and enmity between the parties. The dispute is over a piece of land. PW-2 and PW-3 are closely related to PW-1. PW-7 undisputedly has proved the injuries on the body of the complainant as follows:- “Injuries mentioned in MLC were simple in nature caused with blunt weapon. The probable duration within 12 hours.” The Doctor, however, clarified that the said injuries could be caused by fall or could be self- inflicted. In my view, the Court below has correctly appreciated the evidence on record. The version of PW-2 and PW-3 does not inspire confidence at all. They do not appear to be present at the site at the 3 time of the alleged incident. Enmity is a double edged sword. Record does not rule out the possibility of the complainant lodging a false case against the accused persons. PW-4 allegedly present at the spot does not clarify who was the aggressor party. He also does not clearly narrate the incident as disclosed by the complainant. The medical evidence in any event does not corroborate the ocular version as put forward by the complainant that she had been given beatings continuously for one hour with fist blows. Further the prosecution has not carried out the investigation in a fair manner. As per the first version given by the complainant to the police the accused were not alone. There were other persons who had also given beatings to them. The prosecution did not take any action against such persons. Why so, has not been explained. PW-1 admits that Nitin and Smt. Leela were present at the spot at the time of occurrence of the alleged crime. Yet they were not associated with the investigation nor cited as witnesses. Cumulatively put, the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, no interference is called for. The appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. 7th April, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge. 4