IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 351 of 2001 Date of decision: 01.04.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh ... Appellant Versus Lakshmi Devi & Anr. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondents: Mr. Varinder Singh Rathore, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J.: This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class(4), Shimla, dated 16.11.2000, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 451, 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 6.8.1998, at about 10.00PM, a report was lodged with the police by complainant Veena Sharma. She alleged that she was living in a house taken on rent from Madan Singh alongwith her husband and family since 1997 but from the last two-three days, the accused were abusing her. At about 7.30PM, when she was inside her room and the door was locked, respondent No. 2 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Ram Pal started hitting the door of the complainant with his feet and when she opened the door, the accused entered the room alongwith his wife respondent No. 1, caught hold of the complainant from neck and also gave a blow on her chest. It was alleged that 2 or 3 persons who had also come with the respondents were standing near the gate. She raised an alarm and her husband came and saved her from the clutches of the accused persons. It was also alleged that later on four persons named by her came to the spot and accused fled away from the spot after giving her threat to take her life. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court who tried the respondents leading to their acquittal. I have heard Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer, for the appellant and Mr. Varinder Singh Rathore, counsel for the respondents The submissions made by the learned Law Officer for the appellant were that the statement of the complainant coupled with the other evidence may be considered to hold if the findings are perverse calling for an interference or not. From a perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the complainant stepped into the witness box as PW-3 and stated that her husband was in the other room and respondent No. 2 gave a blow with leg on the door and the accused came inside the room, dragged her from hairs and when she raised an alarm, her husband came there followed by other persons and she was rescued. The respondents while leaving the place, gave her threat. In the complaint lodged by the complainant she had alleged that the accused persons had entered her 3 room, pulled her from hairs and hand was also put on her breast and respondent No. 1 wife of respondent No. 2 alongwith 2-3 persons were standing on the gate. However, she stated differently while she appeared in Court and she was required to be confronted with the assertions made in the F.I.R. lodged by her before any benefit can be taken by the accused in regard to the improvements made. However, the fact remains that she suffered no injuries, did not agree to go for medical examination. She denied the suggestion in her cross- examination that a complaint has been lodged against her, her husband and other witnesses in regard to beatings given to respondent No. 2 whose teeth has been broken in the injuries caused to her at that time. This suggestion was admitted by PW-1Vivek Kumar and PW-2 Vijay Kumar, though denied by the complainant PW-3 herself. The copy of the F.I.R. or report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. should have been placed on record by the respondents so that it could be concluded about the exact date of occurrence or the time when the report was lodged by the accused persons as against the complainant party. However, even in the absence of two documents the fact remains that the prosecution witnesses have admitted that a case has been registered against them for breaking the teeth of respondent No. 1, for which a case was registered and trial is pending in Court No. 5. According to law if the said case was a cross case arising out of the same incident, it was required of the learned trial Court to have made attempts so that both the cases are disposed of by the same Court and at the same time. However, the facts which have been clearly admitted are not required to be substantiated by the documentary 4 evidence, but it is clear that the complainant party had a grudge as against the respondents who had lodged a case against the complainant and the main witnesses. This may be the reason for lodging this report particularly when the accused persons are alleged to have entered the house, gave beatings but no injuries have been caused, which have not been corroborated from the medical evidence. Statements of PW-1 Vivek Kumar and PW-2 Vijay Kumar who were examined as eye witnesses are not such which could be relied upon so as to hold that the occurrence took place, for which the complainant was given the beatings or threat to take her life. From the above discussion, it is clear that the evidence led by the prosecution was not such which can be sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondents and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondents cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court and as such, these findings do not call for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and the same is liable to be dismissed, which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ) April 01, 2008 Judge (BSS) 5