IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 332 of 2002 Date of decision: 6.1.2009. State of H.P. …. Appellant. Vs. Sudesh Kumari and others. ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the appellant-State: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Praveen Chandel vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amb dated 26.11.2001, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 451, 147, 149, 324 and 120-B IPC. Complainant, PW-1 Kesri Devi lodged a complaint with the police on 26.11.1997, wherein she stated that she had become a widow about 15 years back and she has one son aged 18 years and one daughter aged 14 years. According to her, after the death of her husband she started residing at her parental house and sometimes she used to come to her matrimonial home but her son kept residing with his paternal grand mother. According to the complainant on 25.11.1997 at about 6.30 p.m she was sitting in her room. Her son Gurbaksh Singh came to her room. He first asked her to eat an orange and then started misbehaving with her. They started quarrelling with each other. In the meantime, her mother-in-law Chinti Devi and sister-in-law Sudesh Kumari alongwith Raman Kumar and Rama, son and daughter of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment . yes. 2 Sudesh Kumari entered her room. Chinti Devi caught hold of the complainant by her hands and accused Raman poured kerosene oil on her and set fire to her. To save herself, the complainant ran out and stood under the water falling from the roof of the house. She cried for help. She was saved by PW-5 Des Raj, PW-6 Sadhu Ram and PW-7 Varinder Kumar. On the basis of this complaint, F.I.R. was lodged and challan filed. After trial, the accused have been acquitted. Hence the present appeal. The fact that the complainant suffered burn injuries is proved on record. Dr. B.K.Dhiman, PW-3, who issued M.L.C. Ext.PW-3/A, which shows that burn injuries were found on the forehead and cheek of the complainant. These injuries were simple in nature. The question that arises is whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the injuries were caused by the accused persons. Before considering the evidence, it must be kept in mind that the relations between the two sides are quite strained. The complainant Kesri Devi while appearing in Court has totally changed her stand. In her statement in Court she stated that her son Gurbaksh Singh came to her room and asked for an orange but then he went somewhere and did not return for 4-5 days. This is totally contrary to what has been recorded in her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. In fact as per her version in Court much later in the evening Sudesh Kumari, Raman Kumar, Rama Devi and Chinti Devi came to the spot and set fire to her. She has not attributed any act to accused Om Parkash. According to her, the accused set fire to her in the court- yard. This is also contradictory to her earlier statement wherein she had stated that accused had caught hold of her and set fire to her in her room. She admits that she does not have good relations with the 3 accused persons. There is a lot of civil and criminal litigation between them. According to the complainant, she was saved by PW-5 Des Raj, PW-6 Sadhu Ram and PW-7 Varinder Kumar. PW-5 Des Raj has totally denied that anything occurred in his presence. He has denied that he and PW-6 Sadhu Ram helped the complainant in extinguishing the fire. PW-6 has also not supported the prosecution version at all. Only PW-7 Varinder Kumar has supported her version and according to him when he and Des Raj reached the spot complainant was screaming and standing under the drain pipe of the roof. On his asking she informed him that she had been set on fire by accused persons alongwith Gurbaksh Singh. It would be pertinent to mention that not much reliance can be placed on the statement of this witness since he was convicted in a criminal case lodged at the instance of accused Chinti Devi. He was convicted by the trial Court but acquitted by the Sessions Court. Even otherwise, his statement is totally contrary to that of the complainant since the complainant states in Court that Gurbaksh Singh had left the spot whereas this witness states that she informed him that Gurbaksh Singh had set her on fire. The learned trial Court has rightly held that in view of the contradiction in the statement of the complainant and her witnesses, the accused could not be convicted. I find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. January 6, 2009 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™