IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.506 of 2002 Decided on: April 17, 2009. State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Jagdev Singh & Ors. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr.P.K.Sharma, Addl.A.G. with Mr.Ramesh Thakur, Asstt.A.G. For the respondents: Ms AmbiKa Kotwal vice Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. R.B.Misra, Judge (Oral) Heard. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 378 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code for granting of leave to appeal in reference to the impugned judgment, dated 15.3.2002, passed in Case No. 71/1 of 2001 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. 2. The State has come by way of present appeal for seeking grant of leave to appeal in the facts and circumstances that on 16.6.2001 at 7.15 P.M., complainant Kishori Lal was said to be digging land for construction of Varandahj of his house alongwith his wife, Manmohini Rani. It appears, there existed a dispute of land between accused Jagdev Singh Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? …2… and the complainant and a demarcation was also to take place within 15 days. When the said period was over and nothing was done, the complainant Kishori Lal started construction. Accused Jagdev Singh alongwith Vimla, Dilawar and Man Mohan Singh came on the spot and started beating complainant and his wife with the help of danda, stone and Kulhari. It is also the case of prosecution that accused Manmohan Singh had bite to the complainant with the aid of his teeth in addition to the beatings. Consequent upon such beatings, wife of the complainant sustained injuries on her head and sustained injuries by handle of axe. The FIR was lodged and the stone, brick, danda/bamboo and Kulhari were taken into possession by the police. The complainant and his wife were subjected to medical examination where simple injuries were found on their person. Accordingly, a challan, in reference to the offences under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34 IPC was submitted. 3. In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution had examined as many as ten witnesses, whereas the accused/defence had denied their involvement in the offence. 4. Learned trial court has scrutinized the testimonies of PW-1 Kishori Lal, PW-2 Manmohini and PW-3 Mohinder Pal. It was also indicated that two other available independent witnesses namely, Ram Krishan and Anil Kumar, were not examined. PW-1 Kishori Lal is said to have deposed that accused Vimla caught him from his neck and had tored his under-vest. Accused Manmohan Singh gave him blow with the aid of Kulhari on the left eye and the other accused persons, namely Jagdev, Vimla and Dilawar had also beaten with stones, bricks and dandas in their hands. Learned trial court, however, has found that there are discrepancies and different versions …3… were emanating from the FIR as well as the injuries and the weapons having been used. As has been noticed by the learned trial court, neither the allegation of biting with the aid of teeth in the hands of complainant was mentioned in the FIR nor anything was mentioned about infliction of injuries by accused Manmohan Singh on the person of complainant by the aid of Kulhari, more specifically on the left eye. It was also not mentioned in the FIR that Vimla caught the complainant from the neck and had tored his under-vest. Nothing has been indicated in the FIR about the use of bricks and stones and the manner of inflicting of injuries. 5. PW-2 Manmohni and PW-3 Mohinder Pal were said to have taken inconsistent stand in their testimonies regarding inflicting of injuries on the person of PW-1 Kishori Lal. It has also been noted by learned trial court that PW-2 Manmohni is said to have deposed that her husband received injuries on the left eye with the aid of Kulhari, whereas PW-3 Mohinder Pal is said to have deposed that Kulhari blow was given by Manmohan Singh on the forehead of Kishorei Lal. Medical evidence does not indicate that any injury was found on the left eye of the complainant. As such contrary versions were noticed from the statements of PW 2 and PW 3. 6. It may be noted that if accused had come with common intention to inflict injuries over the complainant, but despite accused carrying Kulhari and stones and bricks, these were not used. Some dispute was going on between the complainant on the one side and the alleged accused on the other. The accused being in a better position at the construction site could have used bricks and other hard material in their defence. Nothing has been indicated about the involvement of complainant for saving their person. After going through the prosecution witnesses, …4… medical evidences and types of weapon, alleged to have been used, and the injuries alleged to have been inflicted on the body of the complainant, apparent contradictions have been noticed. As such learned trial court cannot be said to have gone wrong in disbelieving the prosecution story and indicating that prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In my respectful consideration, learned trial court has rightly given benefit of doubt to accused persons and acquitted them for the offences under Sections 324/323 read with Section 34 IPC. As such there is no scope for grant of leave to appeal. As such the present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds in the sum of Rs.3,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount, furnished by the accused, are discharged. April 17, 2009(K) (R.B.Misra), J.