HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. 228 of 2001 Date of Decision:26.3.2008 State of H.P. ……. Appellant Versus Shyam Lal …….. Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant -State : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A. G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. A. G For the respondent : Mr. Navlesh Verma, Advocate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 30.5.2000 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla, H. P. in Case No. 25/2 of 98, titled as State v. Shayam Lal, acquitting the accused of the charged offence. As per the case of the prosecution, on 30.11.1997 at about 4.30 p.m., Shri Gian Parkash (PW-2) nephew of complainant Beli Ram (PW-1) informed him that the accused was uprooting their water pipe. The complainant went to the spot and objected to the same. The accused hit him as a result of which the complainant received injuries on his ankle. The complainant fell on the ground and raised hue and cry, when Pawan Kumar intervened and saved him. The accused also threatened the complainant of the dire consequences. The 2 complainant was got medically examined in the hospital on 1.12.1997 and also on 8.12.1997. FIR No. 205/97 dated 22.12.1997 (Ext.PW-4/A) was registered with Police Station, Boileauganj, Shimla. With the completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court for trial. The accused was charged for the offences under Sections 325 and 506 IPC, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to support of its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC was also recorded. Appreciating the material on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; there was no recovery of the weapon of offence and also the manner in which the accused is alleged to have sustained injuries appears to be doubtful. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. From the record, it is undisputed that even though the incident is of 30.11.1997, however, the FIR was registered only on 22.12.1997 inspite of the fact that the complainant was medically examined on 1.2.1997 and 8.12.1997. From the testimony of ASI Raj Kumar (PW-4), HC Snjeev Kumar (PW-5), the undue delay in registration of the FIR is unexplainable. 3 Dr. A. K. Pathania (PW-3) examined the injured and Shri Beli Ram (PW-1) proved the MLC Ext.PW-3/A. As per his version, the injury was simple and was caused within 24 hours of the date and time of examination, with a blunt weapon. The weapon of offence obviously has not been shown to him. Simply because the PW-1 sustained injuries on his body would not be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. The version as narrated by PW-1 & PW-2 stands contradicted from the record. As per the version of PW-1, he was medically examined after 10.00 a.m. on next day of the incident whereas as per the version of PW-2, the injured was examined in the night intervening on 30.11.1997 and 1.12.1997 at 1.00 a.m. Further, as per the version of PW-1 & PW-2, Shri Pawan Kumar and Sunil Kumar witnessed the occurrence of the incident and came to rescue him but, however, the prosecution has not examined during trial. It has come on record through the statement of PW-1 that the accused is his uncle. The occurrence of the incident as narrated by PW-1 & PW-2 does not appear to be probable. As per the version of PW-1 when the accused tried to give a blow with ‘Gainti’ on his head he was facing the accused. Seeing the weapon, while facing the accused, he stepped back and as a result of which the weapon hit his ankle. PW-1 who was facing the accused ought to have sustained injuries on the front portion of his body and not 4 in the back portion and that too on the ankle. This renders the prosecution story to be doubtful. For the aforesaid reasons, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. I see no reason to interfere with the same. The trial Court has considered the material in its entirety. There is no perversity in the same and the appeal is consequently dismissed. Bail bonds stand discharged. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. March 26, 2008 (rana)