Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.12 of 2000. Dated of Decision: March 28, 2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Des Raj and other. ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No . For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh,J (oral) : The respondents were acquitted by the learned trial court, for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 353, 332 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code, which has been assailed in this appeal. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution has been that: on 30.1.1995, at about 1.30 p.m., complainant Bhuri Singh, a constable (PW1) was on his way in connection with the official work, i.e. service of summons to the office of S.D.M, Chachiot. He was way-laid by the respondents, causing injuries on his person and he was prevented to discharge of his official duties. Further according to the case of the prosecution, the respondents had given the beatings to the complainant on the pretext that he had teased Narda Devi of their village. At that time, PW3 HHG Kesar Singh was also with him. Uniform of the complainant was torn. The respondents ran away on seeing the people gathering on the spot. Bhuri Singh, complainant aforesaid lodged the FIR Ex.PA at about 3.10 p.m. on the same day against the respondents. The police took into possession his shirt Ex.P1 and jersey Ex.P2 vide memo Ex.PB. - 2 - The site plan Ex.PW9/A was prepared. The complainant was medically examined. His MLC is Ex.PW5/A. The Rapat Ex.PW6/A vide which he was sent to serve the summons was also taken in to possession. After recording the statements of the witnesses, the challan was prepared and presented in the court, against the respondents for their trial. At the end of the trial, the learned trial court acquitted the respondents, on the ground that the statements of PW1 Bhuri Singh, complainant and HHG Kesar Singh (PW3) found to be contradictory to each other. According to complainant, Kesar Singh and Narda Devi did not meet on that day. No such incident as alleged had taken place near the offices of SDM or the D.F.O. The persons present at the relevant time on the spot were neither associated by the police during the investigation nor any such independent witness was examined to lend strength to the case of the prosecution. Further the prosecution has failed to prove that at the relevant time, the complainant was having any summons for effecting the service in the SDM Court. The deposition of PW2 Narda Devi did not inspire confidence. She has introduced altogether a new story. The defence version stood probablised. Thus, the respondents were acquitted. Heard. I have carefully gone through the evidence on record. Though Bhuri Singh, complainant has stated that PW3 HHG Kesar Singh was with him and both were going to the office of S.D.M., to serve the summons, but neither he has deposed the names of the persons to whom the service of summons was to be effected nor this fact has been substantiated by HHG Kesar Singh (PW3), whereas Kesar Singh, has given altogether different version. He has stated that when he reached near the office of S.D.M., he met Bhuri Singh. He took him (PW1) to the office of D.F.O. to guide him (PW3) as he had not seen it earlier. When both of them reached near the office of D.F.O., both of them were attracted by the cries of a lady and they saw that two persons had caught hold of a woman. On seeing them, - 3 - these persons fled away and that woman who was weeping also went away. Thinking that it was a dispute between husband and the wife, they did not do anything and went to the office of D.F.O. and after handing over the Dak, returned from that place. When they reached near the SDM office, they were stopped by two persons, one out of them was Des Raj respondent. He was having a danda in his hand and both of them gave beatings to him. The case of the respondents is that the Gram Panchayat had passed a resolution against bad character of Narda Devi (PW2), the copy of which was sent to the S.D.M. The S.D.M. enquired into the matter. Finding that there was apprehension of breach of peace, on account of her suspicious activities, she was kept in the judicial lock up. The complainant who was a constable in police, manipulated her release. Thereafter, both were found in a compromising condition in the jungle, when it was agitated by the villagers, the false case was foisted upon the respondents. However, it has been admitted by him (PW1) that this matter against him as alleged, was enquired into by the Dy. S.P. Headquarters. PW2 Narda Devi has stated that she was teased by Murari Lal and Budhi Singh, respondents. On raising the noise, they started beating her and on hearing the sound of some persons, they ran away. Later, she came to know that the persons who were coming to rescue her were policeman and home guard people. Thereafter, she went to the police station and lodged a report. She has admitted that a resolution was sent by the villagers against her to the S.D.M., though she did not know about the contents thereof. She has further admitted that she was put in the judicial lock-up under the orders of the S.D.M, but she expressed her innocence about any quarrel inter-se the respondents and the complainant. On culling the evidence of the prosecution, I find three different versions given by all the above named three witnesses. The truth has not - 4 - surfaced on record. The apple of discord appears to be something else than as alleged by PW1. In the circumstances, the defence version stands probablised. The complicity of the respondent with the alleged crime is not free from doubt, on account of material discrepancies occurring in the testimonies of the witnesses, discussed above. The learned trial court has rightly picked up and appreciated the circumstances appearing in their testimonies. The conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court is born out from the record. Therefore, I do not find anything worth interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by each of them at any stage during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. March 28, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.