IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 400 of 2000. Judgement reserved on: 27.5.2008. Date of decision: 28.5.2008. State of H.P. ….. Appellant. Vs. Kanta Devi …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajinder Rathore, Advocate vice Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The judgement dated 24.3.2000 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, in case No. 122/1 of 1996 has been assailed in this appeal by the State. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that respondent-accused Kanta Devi on 12.2.1996 at about 5.00 p.m. at village Panoh voluntarily caused simple hurt to PW 1 Kamla Devi with a sickle. The matter was reported to the police, vide rapat Ex. PW 5/A, and on that basis an FIR Ex. PW 5/C was registered at Police Station, Ghumarwin. The complainant Kamla Devi was medically examined Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… vide MLC Ex. PW 3/A, site plan Ex. PW 6/A was prepared during the investigation. The incriminating articles were taken into possession, vide memo Ex. PW 4/A. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the court and charge for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC was framed against the respondent- accused to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined seven witnesses. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which she pleaded her innocence. The accused led no evidence in defence. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the respondent- accused on 24.3.2000, and, therefore, the State has filed the present appeal. 3. I have heard Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, Mr. Rajinder Rathore, Advocate vice counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has erred in appreciating the material on record. The complainant sustained lip injury, which has been proved by her as well as by medical evidence. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has misconstrued, misinterpreted the evidence on record and has erred in acquitting the respondent- accused. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has supported the impugned judgement. 4. Ex. PW 5/A is rapat No. 13, dated 14.2.1996 recorded at the instance of PW 1 Kamla Devi. In Ex. PW 5/A, it has been stated that occurrence took place on 12.2.1996 at about 5.00 p.m. …3… when PW 1 was going to her village and was carrying fodder. It has been alleged that wife of Gappi met her near the house of Parkash and she abused the complainant. She started beating the complainant with kick and fist blows. She gave a sickle blow on the lower jaw of the complainant as a result of which blood started oozing out from the injury. The incident was witnesses by Parkash Miyan. PW 1 Kamla Devi has stated that accused met her near the house of Kaku Miyan and accused gave sickle blow on the lower jaw of the complainant. She has also stated that accused gave her beating with kick and fist blows. She has stated that on third day at about 1.30 p.m. she reported the matter to the police. PW 1 has also stated that she was saved by Kaku. The sickle was produced by the accused to the police. In cross examination, she has stated that she had taken fodder from Nathu. She has stated that one of her brother-in-law is S.H.O. in the police. 5. PW 2 Rajesh Kumar has stated that on 12.2.1996 at about 5.00 p.m. accused had thrown fodder, which Kamla Devi was carrying and gave a sickle blow on complainant’s lower lip as a result of which blood started oozing out from the injury. He rescued the complainant from the accused. In cross examination, he has stated that brother-in-law of the complainant, who is A.S.I. also came on the spot. He has stated that his name is Kaku and Parkash is his elder brother. 6. PW 3 Dr. V.K. Singla, Dental Surgeon, C.H.C., Gangath has stated that he was posted at Referral Hospital, Ghumarwin from 1992 to 1997. On 16.2.1996 at 3.40 p.m. he examined Kamla Devi …4… for dental opinion as the patient was referred by Dr. P.C. Sharma. After examination, he issued MLC Ex. PW 3/A. The injury was simple caused with blunt weapon. The duration of injury was 72 to 144 hours. PW 4 Hardyal Singh has stated that on 12.2.1996, accused hit complainant at her chin. The incident took place near the house of Nathu Ram and the complainant was rescued by the son of Nathu Ram. He came to know later on and then he took the complainant to the hospital. PW 5 Kuldip Singh, HC No. 15 has recorded rapat Ex. PW 5/A and FIR Ex. PW 5/C. 7. PW 6 Hari Ram, ASI is the investigating officer. He prepared site plan Ex. PW 6/A and took into possession sickle Ex. P 1, vide memo Ex. PW 4/A. PW 8 Dr. P.C. Sharma has examined the complainant on 14.2.1996 and issued MLC Ex. PW 8/A. In the MLC, he found injury No. 1 on lower lip, which was stitched in the middle both inside and outside. He found other simple injuries also. In cross examination, he has stated that injury No. 1 can be caused if someone falls on sharp bamboo. 8. The alleged incident took place at about 5.00 p.m. on 12.2.1996 and police was informed by the complainant on 16.2.1996 at about 1.30 p.m. when rapat Ex. PW 5/A was recorded. In Ex. PW 5/A, it has been stated that the complainant was saved by Parkash Miyan, who has not been examined. On the contrary PW 2 Rajesh Kumar has claimed that he was present on the spot and he saw the incident. PW 1 Kamla Devi complainant in her statement has not stated that Rajesh Kumar was present on the spot, but in Ex. PW 5/A she has stated that Parkash Miyan was present on the spot. PW 2 …5… Rajesh Kumar has stated that Kaku is his name and Parkash is the name of his elder brother. PW 3 Dr. V.K. Singla has nowhere stated that injury mentioned in Ex. PW 3/A can be caused by a sickle. PW 4 Hardyal Singh is not an eye witness. PW 8 Dr. P.C. Sharma has stated that injury No.1 can be caused if someone falls on sharp bamboo. The complainant in her statement has not identified sickle Ex. P 1 with which accused allegedly gave blow on her lip. It has come on record that complainant went for medical examination on 14.2.1996, therefore, she was in a position to move about. The incident took place on 12.2.1996, but rapat Ex. PW 5/A was got recorded on 16.2.1996 at 1.30 p.m. The delay in reporting the matter has not been explained properly. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has properly appreciated the material n record and has taken a possible view from the evidence on record. 9. No case for interference has been made out. Hence, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. May 28, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.