IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. 729 of 2000 Date of Decision : January 4, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus: Sita Ram and another …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. Janesh Gupta, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J (Oral). As per the case of the prosecution on 5.6.1986 at about 5.30 P.M, accused No.1 Sita Ram started quarrelling and abusing his aunt Smt. Nirmla Devi (PW-2). Shri Dev Raj (PW-1) tried to rescue PW-2 when accused No.2 Smt. Krishna Devi, wife of accused No.1 arrived at the spot and started giving blows with danda and fists. As a result of the same, both PW-1 and PW-2 sustained injuries and were finally rescued by Smt. Champa Devi (PW-5). The complaint was lodged by PW-1 and accordingly FIR Ext.PW-8/C dated 6.6.1996 was registered with police station, Barotiwala, Distt. Solan u/s 325/34 IPC. PW-1 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 was got medically examined and his MLC Ext.PW-6/A and X-ray reports are Ext.PW-4/A & Ext.PW-4/B. PW-1 was medically examined by Dr. Manju Behl (PW-6). The danda with witch the accused had given beatings to PW-1 was taken into possession vide Furd Ext.PW-1/A. With the completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court for trial. The accused persons were charged for an offence under section 325 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and the statements of the accused u/s 313 Cr.PC were also recorded. In support of their defence, the accused also examined three witnesses. Perusing the material on record, the Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offence on the ground that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record. In their statements recorded in the Court u/s 313 Cr.PC, the accused have stated that PW-1 & PW-2 had in fact given beatings to accused Sita Ram and a report to this effect had been lodged with the police and even the accused had been got medically examined. They had been falsely implicated. 3 PW-1, in his cross-examination has specifically not denied the fact that a counter complaint was lodged by the accused against the complainant party. It has also been proved through Ext. PW-2/A that the accused suffered injuries on his body. The prosecution has failed to investigate the same and bring on record these facts. Therefore, with this background the material on record needs to be examined carefully and with circumspection. Through the statements of Shri M. R.Verma (PW-4), Dr. Manju Behl (PW-6), Shri Gurdayal (PW-7), Shri Sunder Singh (PW-8) and H.C Kulwant Singh (PW-10), it has come on record that PW-1 sustained grievous injuries on his body. It has come on record that a cross complaint had been filed prior to the lodging of the present complaint. Simply because there is injury on the body of the PW-1 itself cannot be a ground for holding the accused persons guilty of the charged offence. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of the accused persons in the commission of the charged offence. For the said purpose, statements of Shri Dev Raj (PW-1) Smt. Nirmla Devi (PW-2) , Shri Ishwar Dass (PW-3), Smt. Champa Devi (PW-5) and Shri Madan Lal (PW-9) required to be examined. Shri Madan Lal (PW-9) had been declared hostile and there is nothing in his statement which would show the complicity of the accused in the commission of the offence. PW- 4 3 has stated that he saw the two groups quarrelling and fighting with each other but, however, could not specifically state as to which of the accused person had given blows with danda and fists to PW-1 & PW-2. Similarly, PW-5 has been evasive in deposing with regard to the complicity of the accused. PW-1 in his cross- examination, has admitted that there are number of cases pending against him. From his statement, it is clear that there is prior litigation and animosity between the complainant and the accused. He has also admitted that in relation to another offence even the police had registered a case against him for his alleged quarrel with the police and he has also been imprisoned for having committed contempt of Court. Having perused the statements of PW-1 & PW-2, it cannot be said that their versions inspire confidence or prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Their versions are not even corroborated by each other. Even they do not state that the injury sustained by PW-1 was as a result of blows given by accused No.2 with the danda. As per the version of PW-2, the accused persons continued to beat her with danda for more than a hour. However, this version of PW-2 does not appear to be true and correct. There is nothing on record to substantiate the same. It is not the case of the prosecution that PW-2 was got medically examined. Her version, therefore, does 5 not appear to be true and correct and cannot be relied upon to hold the accused guilty of the charged offence. The fact that the accused persons had also lodged a prior complaint against the complainant party has been concealed by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, it therefore, cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. The Court below has appreciated the material in its entirety and there is no perversity in the same. For all the aforesaid reasons, I see no reason to interfere with the findings and conclusions of the Court below and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds stand discharged. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. January 4, 2008 (rana)