IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.508 of 2002 Date of decision : June 18, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Raj Kumar and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated, 27th February, 2002, of trial Magistrate, whereby respondents, Raj Kumar, Neelu Parmar and Ashok Kumar, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 325 and 323, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Accusations, on which the respondents were put on trial, were that on 11th March, 2000, around 8.30 a.m., PW-2 Santosh Kumari went to fetch wheat chaff from a Cho, near her house, where it had been stacked and secured. On reaching the Cho, she found the respondents damaging the stack of wheat chaff. When she asked why they were damaging the stack, they told that it had been stacked at the site, belonging to them and when PW-2 Santosh Kumari objected, she was dealt a fist blow on her mouth by respondent Raj Kumar and other two Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… respondents started kicking, slapping and fisticuffing her. She was rescued by Sher Singh (PW-9), one Raj Kumar and Shamla Devi (PW-10). She was taken to the hospital at Gagret, the same very day. On the third day, i.e. on 13th March, 2000, she made a statement to the police, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of which case was registered against the respondents. Her medical examination showed that she was having eight injuries, including loss of one tooth. Injury to the tooth was found to be grievous. Other injuries were opined to be simple in nature. 3. Trial Court has observed that there are serious contradictions in the statements of PW-2 Santosh Kumari, PW-9 Sher Singh and PW-10 Shamla Devi and also there is delay of three days in lodging the FIR, even though on the very day of the occurrence, rather within a couple of hours of the occurrence, the injured had reached Gagret where there is Primary Health Centre and the Police Station is also situated at that very place. 4. Prosecution has not offered any explanation, whatsoever, for long delay of three days in lodging the FIR. Learned Assistant Advocate General argued that the cause of delay was that Santosh Kumari was fit to make statement only on 13th March, 2000, per certificate Ex. PF. Even if, it be assumed that before 13th March, 2000, Santosh Kumari was unable to make statement, any of the other alleged eye- witnesses, one of whom was alleged to be a daughter of the injured, could have reported the matter to the police. …3… Therefore, the aforesaid explanation offered by the learned Assistant Advocate General cannot be accepted. 5. Besides, undue long delay in lodging the FIR, there are contradictions in the statements of the injured and the eye- witnesses. According to PW-2 Santosh Kumari, she was given only fist and kick blows, but PW-10 Shamla Devi says that she was repeatedly hit with Dandas and stones. Again, PW-10 Shamla Devi says that two-three women had rescued PW-2 Santosh Kumari, meaning thereby that there were no male rescuers, but PW-9 Sher Singh says that he and one Raj Kumar and Shamla Devi (PW-10) had rescued the injured. In view of the abovestated position, I do not think this to be a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal, passed by the trial Magistrate. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. June 18, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J