IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. 616 of 2000 Date of Decision : 2.1.2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus: Shanti & others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant : Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Addl. A. G. For the respondents : Mr. J. L. Bhardwaj, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 29.4.2000 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arki, Distt. Solan, H. P. in Criminal Case No.45/2 of 95, titled as State of H.P. v. Shanti Devi and others, acquitting the accused of the charged offence. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.3.1995, at about 8 A.M., Smt. Barastu Devi (PW-2) wife of Shri Shiv Ram (PW-3) was returning to home from the fields when the accused in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained her on the way and beat her with danda and fist blows. The 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 accused also unleashed their dog as a result of which PW-2 received an injury of dog bite. The matter was reported to the police by PW-2 and FIR Ext.PW-3/A dated 27.3.1995 was registered with Police Station, Arki, District Solan under Sections 341, 506, 323, 289, 34 IPC. PW-2 was got medically examined and in terms of Ext.PW-4/A, it was so found that she suffered one grievous injury and two simple injuries. The investigation of the case was completed and the challan was presented in the Court for trial. The accused persons were charged for an offence u/s 341, 325, 289 read with Section 34 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses and statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.PC were also recorded. Having perused the material on record, the Court below arrived at its conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as the independent witnesses S/Shri Sita Ram (PW-1) and Jaru Ram (PW-5) could not be relied upon being interested witnesses. I have perused the material on record and particularly the depositions of the witnesses. In order to support of its case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses. Dr. Udit Kumar (PW-4) has proved injuries caused on the body of PW-2 and Shri Kishori Lal (PW-6) 3 is the Investigating Officer who has proved the investigation having been carried out in the present case. PW-2 is stated to have been intimidated and beaten up by accused No.1 & 2. At the relevant time, PW-1 & PW-5 were present and they rescued PW-2 from the clutches of the said accused persons. Accused No.3 is alleged to have unleashed her dog and as a result of which PW-2 sustained injuries of dog bite. A careful scrutiny of the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 & PW-5 would show that there is prior litigation pending between the complainant PW-3 and the accused persons. The parties have been litigating before the Civil Court as also the Revenue authorities. Through the versions of PW-1 & PW-5, it has come on record that both these witnesses were on visiting terms with PW-2 & PW-3. In fact PW-5 has gone to the extent of saying that in his village there are two groups, one is that of the accused persons and the other is that of the complainant and he belonged to the group of the complainant. In my view, the Court below has rightly disbelieved the witnesses while arriving at its conclusion. They are interested witnesses and no independent evidence is on record to substantiate the versions of the witnesses. PW-5 in fact has admitted that accused No.3 an aged lady of 95 years is confined to bed as she cannot work. In view 4 of this specific version of PW-5, the case of the prosecution cannot be believed to be true and correct. In my view, the aforesaid witnesses had reason to depose in favour of the complainant and as such are interested witnesses and their testimony cannot be relied upon to convict the accused of the charged offence. Further, there is discrepancy in the statement of PW-5 inasmuch as he has stated the alleged offence took place in the year 1997 whereas as per the case of the prosecution the alleged incident took place in the year 1995. PW-2 & PW-3 have also admitted that the parties are not on talking terms and there is animosity between the complainant and the accused persons. The parties are not only having litigations but are neighbours and related to each other. Further, PW-4 has stated that the injury on the body of PW-2 could be falling on hard surface. There has been no recovery of danda nor is there anything on record to suggest that PW-2 received injury by the very same dog which was unleashed by accused No.3. The accused persons have had the benefit of being acquitted by the Court below. The Court below has considered the entire material in its entirety. I have also perused the same and I see no perversity in the decision rendered by the Court below. The 5 prosecution has failed to prove the complicity of the accused in the charged offence. For all the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds stand discharged. ( Sanjay Karol ), J. January 2, 2008 (rana)