IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 61 of 2003 Date of decision: 21.12.2009 State of H.P. …. Appellant. Vs. Sita Ram and others ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the appellant: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents Ms. Nishi Goel Vice Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, in Case No.271/1 of 1999 dated 11.9.2002 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution story in brief is that on 1.10.1999 at about 7.30 p.m the complainant Rakesh Kumar alongwith his mother were in their house at village Damehra. The three accused forcibly entered the house of the complainant. They were armed with Darat and Danda and they threatened to kill the complainant. They also beat up the complainant and his mother, who sustained injuries. F.I.R with regard to the accident was lodged. Investigation was done. The complainant and his 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment. Yes. 2 mother were taken to hospital for check-up. Thereafter, challan was filed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. They have been acquitted vide the impugned judgement. Hence the present appeal. One of the main grounds taken by the learned trail Court for acquitting the accused is that even as per the statements of the brother and mother of the complainant, the police officials i.e. ASI Mani Ram and two constables visited the place of occurrence on the night when the incident took place i.e. 1.10.1999 itself. As per the material on record, ASI Mani Ram did not take part in the investigation. The investigation was conducted by Inspector Pritam Singh and S.I. Govind Ram. The witnesses of the prosecution themselves admitted that Mani Ram and two constables reached the spot at night time on 1.10.1999 itself. The F.I.R. Ext.PW-1/A has been recorded on 2.10.1999 at 9.00 a.m. If the police officials had visited the spot on the night on 1.10.1999 there is no explanation as to why the F.I.R was not lodged till the next date. The second glaring circumstance is that even as per the prosecution witnesses there are 8-9 other cases pending between the parties. It is true that in every case it is not necessary to have independent witness but in a case where parties have been litigating for long and their relation are inimical to each other the 3 non-examination of independent witness is a reasonable ground not to believe the prosecution witnesses. It is not as if the occurrence has taken place in an area where no other witness is available. Admittedly, there were a number of houses surrounding the house of the complainant. In case the complainant and his mother had been given beatings there is no reason why the neighbours and other persons of the locality could not be associated with the investigation. There are other contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses also. Keeping in view the relationship between the parties and inherent contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, I see no reason to interfere with the judgement of the learned trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. 21st October, 2009 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge.