IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 591 of 2000 Date of decision: 23.06.2008 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Sita Ram & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondents: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bilaspur, dated 31.1.2000, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 451,325, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 21.11.1996, a report was lodged with the police by one Smt. Savitri Devi PW-1 that at about 8.00A.M., she alongwith her husband and her son Rajesh Kumar were present in their house when the accused persons with a common intention entered their house alongwith Dandas, gave abuses to them and 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 also started giving beatings to them. She further alleged that a Darat blow was given on her head and her son and husband also suffered injuries. She further stated that she raised an alarm and one Pratima and Chander Lekha came to the spot. Her tooth was also broken in this quarrel. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed as against the respondents who were tried by the learned trial Court leading to their acquittal. Heard and have gone through the record. The evidence of the material witnesses, namely, injured, her family members and other eye witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution deserves to be scrutinized as to whether it corroborates the statements of one another or not and whether it can be relied upon so as to hold that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse. Coming to the statement of witnesses, PW-1 Savitri Devi, injured, has stated that she alongwith her son Rajesh Kumar and her husband were working in the courtyard when the accused persons came there and they gave beatings to her with Darat, while Sita Ram accused came with Danda and her two teeth were broken. She further stated that they were given Darat and Danda blows at that time. She raised an alarm and her husband, Pratima and Chander Lekha came to rescue her. She nowhere has stated that her husband was also given injury at that time by the accused persons. Her cross-examination shows that accused persons are from their family and they have dispute in regard to the stairs and they are not on visiting terms with each other. She denied the suggestions 3 that accused Gian Chand was going through stairs, they attacked Gian Chand. She clearly stated that Chander Lekha, Prtima and Dina Nath came subsequently when the beatings were given, which does not prove the presence of these persons or that they have witnessed the occurrence. She denied her knowledge in case the accused persons also suffered injuries at that time. PW-7 Rajesh Kumar, her son, who was allegedly present at the spot at that time, has stated that accused persons came there, broke the teeth of his mother and other accused gave beatings to her. He further stated that in this quarrel apart from Savitri Devi, Pawan also received injuries which was not the case of the complainant as PW-1. He further stated that he was rescued by Pratima and Nand Lal. He also admitted the dispute in regard to the stairs. He has stated that accused Sita Ram gave Darat blow on the mouth of the injured/complainant, but she has stated as PW-1 that she was given a Danda blow by Sita Ram accused. He has also stated that Chander Lakha, Pratima and his father Dina Nath came to the spot on hearing cries, which clearly shows that his father was present there as stated by PW-1 Savitri Devi. He further clarified that Dina Nath came to the spot who is his father, who has been examined as PW-2. He clearly stated that both the parties grappled with one another and accused party suffered injuries, which fact was denied by his mother as PW-1. He also admitted that in this quarrel accused persons also sustained injuries and the case is pending against him as well as his family members. 4 PW-8 Nand Lal who is alleged to have seen the occurrence has stated that when he heard an alarm, he went to the spot and found injury on the person of Gian Chand and he rescued him and other persons who were also blood stained. He stated that after rescuing Gian Chand, he went back and has not stated anything that any injury was inflicted on the person of the complainant, her husband and her son at that time. He clearly admitted in his cross-examination that when he went to the spot, both the parties were grappling with one another and in his presence, no injuries were inflicted. Coming to the testimony of PW-3 Pratima Devi, who is another eye witness, she has stated that when she went to the spot on hearing noise, she found that Sita Ram accused was inflicting blows on the person of family of Dina Nath. She stated that Savitri Devi’s teeth were broken at that time and she came up with another plea that her ear rings (Bali) misplaced, which was never so stated by PW-1. She stated that Savitri Devi’s husband also came to the spot who was given beatings. She came up with the plea that the accused persons quarreled with them and also gave threats to them which clearly shows that she has also dispute with the accused persons and her statement, therefore, does not inspire confidence. She stated that when she raised an alarm none came from the village except her Bhabhi, who has not been examined and she also stated about the presence of Nand Lal. But her statement as discussed above, does not corroborate the version of the complainant. Complainant’s husband Dina Nath who was examined as PW-2, has stated that he had gone to fetch grass and on hearing the noise, he came back 5 and found that the accused persons were inflicted blows on the person of the complainant. He also stated that the injuries were given on his person, about which there is no other evidence. He stated that when he tried to rescue his family from the clutches of Sita Ram accused, he gave blow to him with Danda which was not so stated by the other witnesses. He stated that he went to call Suresh and when he was coming back, the accused persons again attacked upon him near the house of Luhar, which was not so stated by the other witnesses. He has admitted that at that time, he was working at a distance of about ½ K.M. where he had gone for cutting of grass. He stated that he reached the spot within 7-8 minutes, whereas the complainant’s statement suggested that he was working in the courtyard alongwith her son PW-7 Rajesh Kumar. He stated that he is not aware with which particular weapon his wife was given beatings. From the above discussion of the evidence, it is clear that the witnesses have stated differently in regard to the occurrence. It is admitted case that both the parties suffered injuries at that time and they grappled with one and another resulting in injuries on the person of accused party, for which a case was also registered against the complainant part, which is pending. Thus, it is clear that the evidence of the prosecution was not such upon which implicit reliance can be placed and keeping in view the contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, the findings of the learned trial Court leading to the acquittal of the respondents cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court and as such, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the 6 appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents stand discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ) June 23, 2008 Judge (BSS) 7