IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 372 of 2001. Date of decision: 18.11.2008. State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Khashama Devi … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. D.K. Khanna and Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocates. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kasauli at Solan, dated 1.2.2001, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against her under Sections 324 and 506 I.P.C. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 15.7.1996, at about 1.00 P.M., a report was lodged with the police by one Smt. Suman Verma accompanied by her sister Smt. Raksha Devi. It was alleged therein by Smt. Suman Verma that she had come to the quarter of her sister Raksha Devi at Solan. At about 12.30 P.M., exchange of words took place in between her sister Raksha Devi and respondent. The respondent abused her sister and when she intercepted, the respondent caught hold of her sister, brought a knife from her room and attempted to hit her sister. When she tried to intercept, the respondent gave a blow with the knife on her left arm and hand and blood started oozing out 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - from the injuries. It was further alleged that one Baldev Singh came to the spot who rescued them and while leaving the place, the respondent gave a threat to take her life as well as that of her sister. It was alleged that one Suman Sharma, tenant, also came to the spot. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondent, leading to her acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. On a perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the prosecution has examined six witnesses to substantiate their case and out of them, statements of complainant PW-4 Suman Verma and that of her sister Raksha Devi can be said to be most material. The complainant has been examined as PW-4 and she has stated that when she came out of the house of her sister, she found that her sister and respondent were quarreling and respondent gave beatings to her sister and also gave abuses. She separated them and at that time, the respondent was giving beatings with hand and fists. Thereafter, the respondent went to her house, brought a knife and hit the same on her left hand and left arm and blood oozed out of the injuries. She further stated that at that time respondent gave a blow with ‘Plas’ on the head of her sister and thereafter, she went to the Police Chowki accompanied by her sister and lodged the report. In regard to these injuries, PW-1 Smt. Raksha Devi and sister of complainant, has stated differently and has not corroborated the sequence of events as narrated by her sister. PW-1 Smt. Raksha Devi has stated that the respondent gave abuses to her and has not stated in regard to any blow given with hand or fists by the respondent over her person. She has stated that her sister came there and asked the respondent as to why she was quarreling and then - 3 - the respondent started giving beatings to her. She did not state that the beatings were given with hand or fists or over which part of the body. Thereafter, the respondent went, brought a knife and inflicted blows on the hand and arm of her sister and blood oozed out. She came up with another plea that a threat was also given at that time to take away her life, which was never so stated by PW-4 Suman Verma. PW-1 Smt. Raksha Devi has also not stated about any blow given over her head by the respondent, as stated by her sister PW-4 Suman Verma. Apart from the above, there are some other infirmities in the statements of these witnesses that they cannot be believed. In regard to the recovery of the knife used for inflicting the blows on the person of PW-4 Suman Verma, all the witnesses have stated differently. PW-1 Smt. Raksha Devi has stated that the police came and took into possession the knife. She has not stated from where this knife was recovered. PW-4 Suman Verma has stated that the knife had been thrown in the Nali, which was recovered by the police and then sealed. In the cross-examination, she has stated that the knife was brought from the back side of the house of one Lala Mittal, whih was not seen by her thereafter. In regard to the knife, the Investigating Officer PW-6 ASI Chaman Lal has stated that he had not recovered the knife from the spot but it was taken in possession from the accused. Thus, all the witnesses have stated differently. In regard to the clothes, if there were blood stained or these were taken in possession, PW-1 Smt. Raksha Devi has stated that the clothes were blood stained. PW-4 Suman Verma has stated that the blood had fallen on her clothes as well as on the clothes of her sister which were taken into possession by the police. But the Investigating Officer PW-6 ASI Chaman Lal has no where stated that blood stained clothes were taken into possession and they had not been produced or exhibited during the trial of the case. PW-4 Suman Verma - 4 - has further stated that the blood had fallen on the ground and the soil was taken in possession by the police, but this does not find corroboration from the testimony of PW-6 ASI Chaman Lal. Apart from the above, it has come up in the testimony of PW-1 that one Baldev was also present there at the time of occurrence. PW-4 Suman Verma has stated about the presence of Bhgwan Dass apart from the said Baldev. However, the said Baldev was only cited as a witness but Bhagwan Dass was not cited as a witness and even the said Baldev was not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. It has also come up in the evidence that this a very big building in which several tenants are residing but the names of the persons present in the house have not been mentioned, though it has been only brought on record that the persons may be present in the house, which is a five storeyed building. From the above discussion, it is clear that there are various contradictions in the statements of two eye witnesses examined by the prosecution and the presence of one or more eye witnesses at the spot also stands established from the evidence but none has come forward to support the prosecution story. To support the prosecution story, the presence of one DW-1 Smt. Sumitra Devi was also suggested and she had been examined as DW-1 but has not supported the prosecution version. It is also clear from the statements of the material witnesses that there is some dispute in between the respondent and complainant in regard to the tenancy and the possibility that a false case had been planted cannot be ruled out. From the above discussion, it is clear that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. - 5 - In view of the above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. (V.K. Ahuja), November 18, 2008 Judge (BSS) - 6 -