Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.746 of 2002. Dated of Decision: July 10, 2009. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Vijay Kumar. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh,J (oral) : The challenge has been made to the acquittal of the respondent, passed in criminal case No.36-II/2000, decided on 29.8.2002 by the learned trial court, for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. I have reappraised the evidence on record and have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In short, the prosecution case is that on 17.3.2000, at about 5.30 p.m. at the place known as “Choaun”, the complainant PW1 Veena Devi was cutting the grass in her field and was also grazing her cattle. Her cattle entered into the fields of the respondent. When she went there to take them away, as per the FIR, the respondent objected to it and started abusing, but she managed to take away her cattle. The respondent followed her. He was having some sharp - 2 - edged weapon and also a stick and he caused injury on the wrist of her left arm. She also sustained the injuries on other part of the body. In the meantime, her daughter PW-3 Kirna Kumari came there and she raised hue and cry. On hearing her cries, PW-2 Avtar Chand, the husband of the complainant came there along with Manohar Lal (not examined). Thus, she escaped, but the respondent threatened her with dire consequences. Thereafter, she lodged a report Ex.PW1/A to the police. The complainant Veena Devi was got medically examined. The Doctor found contusion marks on her right shoulder and also left glutal region. There was also incised wound on her left ulna. In the opinion of the doctor, all these injuries were simple and the injury on the left hand was with the sharp edged weapon. To this effect, MLC Ex.PW6/A was issued and her report Ex.PW1/A culminated into FIR Ex.PW7/A. The police prepared the site plan Ex.PW7/C and also effected the recovery of sickle from the complainant. The blood stained clothes of the complainant were taken into possession and after completing the investigation, the case was presented in the court for the trial of the respondent, for the aforesaid offences. Finding prima-facie a case against the respondents for the offences referred above, he was charge-sheeted, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The respondent was put to trial and at the end of trial, he was acquitted. - 3 - At the very outset, I would like to say that the prosecution has examined the relation witnesses and the independent witness Manohar Lal was not examined, therefore, the statements of the prosecution witnesses are required to be closely and cautiously examined and appreciated. I have noticed that PW1 complainant Veena Devi has given altogether different story than that of the FIR. On the day of the alleged occurrence, according to her as PW1, her cattle entered into the field of the respondent and damaged wheat crop of the respondent and the respondent drove off her cattle from his land, whereas, in the FIR, she stated that when her cattle went in the field of respondent, she had taken away her cattle, which was objected to by the respondent. It is not understood as to why respondent would object to the taking away of her cattle by the complainant when it was damaging his crop. Her initial version as set out in the FIR raises a doubt. Further her improved version in the court compounds the suspicion. Further, PW1 also testified on oath that her husband Avtar Chand (PW2) came to the spot and scuffled with the respondent, but this fact has been denied by him and also by his daughter PW3. PW2 aforesaid also did not lend any support to her version that at the relevant time, the respondent was driving off her cattle from his fields, to which she had objected to. The learned trial court rightly observed that the statements of both these witnesses are polls apart. In my opinion, it materially contradicts the version given by each of them, but also it differs - 4 - materially from the initial story set up by the complainant in the form of FIR. It is also pertinent to note that with respect to the same incident, the respondent had also lodged the report with the police, but the Investigating Officer did not explain any where as to what had happened to the said complaint. The respondent had also given a definite version which remained without any inquiry or investigation. Against the aforesaid background, in my opinion, Manohar Lal was a material witness, who could have thrown light on the actual incident which took place, but by not examining him without any cogent reason, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid standard of evidence on the reappraisal, I have found that the prosecution was not able to prove the case against the respondent beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court cannot be held to be perverse. The appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. July 10, 2009. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.