Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. 85 of 2005 Date of Decision: 4.11.2011. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Ajmer Singh . ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant : Mr. A.K Bansal, Addl. A.G with Mr. P.M Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. N.K Thakur, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. : The present appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment, passed by the learned trial Court in Case No.46-1 of 1998, decided on 11.11.2004, whereby the respondent was acquitted, for the offences punishable under Section 324 the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 3. Precisely case of the petitioner is that on 16.8.1997 around 6.00 p.m. PW-4 Jarnail Singh and PW-1 Raghunath Singh were sitting in Barha (cow-shed area), - 2 - the respondent came there and complained to the complainant that his oxen has destroyed the crop of the respondent. On this complainant replied that in those days the cattle were being let loose by the villagers and they keep on wandering here and there and might have damaged his crop. On this the respondent got offended and asked Jarnail Singh to accompany him to his fields and would show the damaged done to his crop. 4. PW-1 Raghunath Singh and PW-4 Jarnail Singh accompanied the respondent/accused. When they reached the fields respondent/accused Ajmer Singh gave 2-3 blows with darat (large Scythe) on the head of PW-4 Jarnail Singh, which resulting into the bleeding injuries. PW-1 Raghunath Singh with a view to pacify the matter intervened and pushed away the respondent/accused. On getting the injury the complainant fell down on the ground. The injured was taken to the hospital and matter was reported to the police. The injured was got medically examined and his MLC is Ex. PW-7/A. Police lodged the FIR Ex. PW-8/B and also prepared site plan Ex. PW-9/A and they took into possession Darat Ex. P-1 vide memo PW-2/B. - 3 - 5. After recording the statement of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr. P.C, the challan was completed and accused was sent up for trial to the Court. 6. Finding a prima-facie case for the offences aforesaid, respondents were charge-sheeted to which he pleaded no guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, prosecution has examined ten witnesses and respondent/accused was also examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, to which he denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded that is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. However, no evidence in defence was led. 7. At the end of the trial, the respondent was acquitted on the ground that there have been material contradictions and improvements in the statement of prosecution witnesses who were otherwise interested and closely related. Hence, the present appeal. 8. PW-1 Sh. Raghunath Singh is the complainant in the present case and his statement was recorded under Section 154 of code of criminal procedure by the police on the next day of alleged incident wherein he stated that he along with Jarnail Singh (PW-4) were sitting in the area of cow-shed. In the meantime, the respondent - 4 - came there and told about the damage caused to his fields, as stated above and he insisted him to accompany him to assess the damage. When they were in the process of reaching the spot, the respondent immediately turned back and hit Jarnail Singh with a darat on his head, which resulted into injuries. He intervened and separated both of them and raised alarm, but PW-4 Jarnail Singh injured had a different version to tell that it was not the accused but it was maternal uncle of the respondent named Baldev Singh who had come to them and made a complaint about the damage caused to their fields and then they went there. Further in cross-examination PW-1 Raghunath Singh denied having pushed the injured in order to save him from the respondent/accused. He was confronted with his statement Ex. PW-1/A para A to A to this effect. PW-2 Baldev singh did not support the prosecution case at all. Thus declared hostile. However, in cross- examination conducted by the accused, he admitted that there was an extensive damage caused to the crop in fields by the cattle of Jarnail Singh and accused had also told him that it was his duty to tether and guard his animals properly, which resulted into hitted arguments - 5 - and both of them scuffled as a result of which Jarnail Singh fell down and got injury on his head. He also stated that he did not see the accused dealing a blow on the person of the injured Jarnail Singh. His statement give rise two views. Legally the view favouring the accused has to weigh in his favour. 9. Further PW-3 Vinod Kumar stated that the respondent had caused injury with the held of “Darat” from behind. He also stated that Raghu ath and Baldev Singh reached at the spot later and he was already present on the spot which also goes to the contrary to the version made by PW-1 Raghunath Singh.He further introduced a new story by saying that both the persons had grappled with each other. PW-4 stated about the damage caused to the maize crop of the accused whereas PW-5 Yudhveer Singh is the witness to the recovery of darat, but he admitted that darat was lying on the ground and was not produced by the accused. 10. PW-6 Prem Singh is father of the injured, who did not witness to the alleged incident. 11. Thus, a critical examination of the aforesaid evidence, leads me to conclude that the findings of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Court from the - 6 - evidence on record is possible. As such, the acquittal of the respondent does not warrant interference. The state appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. 12. The respondent is discharged of his bails bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of this case. 13. Send down the records. November 4,2011 (Surinder Singh) (Priti) Judge.