Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.697 of 2001. Dated of Decision: November 18, 2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. ……… Appellant. Versus Gurdayal Singh and others. ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant : Mr. J.S.Guleria, Law Officer. For the Respondents : Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J(oral): The State has assailed the acquittal of respondents under Sections 324, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, recorded by the learned trial court, in Criminal Case No.110-II/96, decided on 24.5.2001. Precisely, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 6.11.1995, at about 8 A.M., PW2 Purna Devi complainant was providing fodder to her cattle near the cowshed. Around 8 a.m., respondent No.2 Smt. Gohari Devi came there and started collecting the char-wood over the land nearer to the cowshed, which was objected to by the complainant and claiming the land to be her own. A verbal altercation started between them. In the meantime, other respondents, namely Gurdyal Singh, Pappu alias Jagdish and Satish Kumar came to her support and started giving beatings 2 to her. It is alleged that Gurdayal Singh was having a sickle in his hand. He hit with the same on the left arm of PW2 Purna Devi and other dealt the fist and kick blows. She raised hue and cry. PW3 Smt. Satya Devi, Harnam Singh and PW6 Nirmal Singh got attracted towards it. They went to the spot and relieved the complaint from the clutches of the respondents. The matter was reported to the police, to this effect report Ex.PW4/A was recorded in the daily diary. The complainant was got medically examined. PW1 Dr. Sandeep Narula noticed the superficial cut on the left arm, which was 2 cm long and swelling on it. Suspecting the fracture, she was advised X-ray, but no fracture was detected. Thus, he opined the injury in question as simple and issued Medico Legal Certificate Ex.PW1/A. Police visited the spot and prepared site plan Ex.PW8/A, wherein the alleged place of incident has been pointed out at point ‘A’, which is shown as common path. After completing the investigation of the case, the challan was presented in the court for trial of the respondents. Finding prima facie a case under the aforesaid sections, the respondents were charge-sheeted. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined its witnesses to prove its case. Accused-respondents raised the defence that where they were collecting the char-wood, the land belonged to them and in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the 3 Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the incident, as alleged, however, no evidence in defence was led. At the end of the trial, the respondents were acquitted on the grounds that the evidence of the prosecution is contradictory and there was no clear cut evidence regarding the possession of the land over which the dispute had taken place. Thus, the learned trial court gave the benefit of doubt and acquitted the respondents. Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer has vehemently argued that of course offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out from the evidence on record, however, there is enough evidence to convict the respondents under Sections 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. I have reappraised the evidence led by the prosecution carefully. It is worth mentioning here that the husband of the complainant and respondent Gurdayal Singh are real brothers. PW2 Smt. Purna Devi has clearly admitted that the land inter- se both the parties are joint. In view of this situation, the suggestion regarding the possession of respondent regarding the land though denied by PW2 Purna Devi and PW6 Nirmal Singh assumes importance. During the investigation of this case, the police did not procure the revenue record to show and prove as to which party was in possession thereof. There is a glaring contradiction with respect to the use of sickle by respondent Gurdayal Singh. In FIR, PW2 Purna Devi has 4 categorically mentioned that Gurdayal Singh, when arrived at the spot, was having a sickle in his hand. He gave its blow on her hand, which resulted into bleeding injury. But according to the doctor, this was superficial wound of 2 cm long. However, as PW2, she testified on oath that the sickle was not used by the said accused and in fact he used danda, which fact has further been stated by PW6 Nirmal Singh. He was also confronted with the earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that the respondents Gurdayal Singh had used the sickle. This is a material contradiction in the prosecution case which goes to its root. It is a settled law that the evidence of the injured can be acted upon if it inspire confidence. But in the instant case PW2 Smt.Purna Devi and her son PW6 Nirmal Singh have shaken the very foundation of the prosecution story rendering it doubtful. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the prosecution case did not inspire confidence and the learned trial court had rightly acquitted the respondents by giving them the benefit of reasonable doubt, which is borne out from the record. Thus, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. November 18, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge. 5