Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.449 of 2001. Dated of Decision: November 11, 2008. State of H.P. ……… Appellant. Versus Maya Devi. ………. Respondent. 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 Respondent : Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate, Surinder Singh, J (oral): The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondent, passed by the learned trial court in Criminal case No.RBT-69-II/99/96 decided on 31st July, 2000, under Sections 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Precisely, the facts of the case are that on 29th February, 1996, the cattle of the accused, Bal Krishan, Relu and Bumb Bahadur were damaging the crop of complainant Atul Singh (PW2), he asked to remove the cattle. The respondent happened to be presented on the roadside. She started pelting the stones, however, Atul Singh removed the cattle from his fields. It is alleged that thereafter the respondent had gave a teeth bite on the left arm joint of the 2 complainant and while leaving, he was alleged to have threatened him with dire consequences. The aforesaid incident is alleged to have been seen by Davinder Kumar (PW3) and Pardeep kumar (not examined). A report Ex.PW1/A in the Roznamcha was lodged on the same day and the complainant was medically examined. On the medical examination of the complainant, PW4 Dr. D.V. Rana noticed only one simple injury with the teeth bite on the left arm of the complainant, caused within six hours from the time of its examination. Next day, the respondent was also examined and the doctor at the instance of police and noticed abrasion on the right side of the forehead 1cm x 0.5 cm in length and width, which was clotted with blood. The said injury was found to be simple and having caused within 24 hours. Police visited the crime site and prepared the site plan Ex.PW6/A. After completing the investigation, the police presented the challan in the court for the trial of the respondent under the aforesaid sections. The respondent was charge-sheeted. She pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case of the respondent was denial simplicitor. The trend of the cross-examination of the complainant shows that the defence was raised that there was previous litigation inter-se the parties and further that the respondent 3 was badly beaten by the complainant and the alleged eye witnesses. However, no evidence in defence was led. At the end of the trial, the respondent was acquitted by the learned trial court, on the grounds that the injury in question could be self inflicted as it was simple and superficial in nature, as opined by the doctor. Secondly, the alleged incident took place in the fields, whereas as per the site plan, the incident is alleged to have taken place on the road-side. Thirdly, the complainant stated in his cross-examination that his maize crop was destroyed by the cattle of the respondent, but in the month of February, the wheat crop is sown, not the maize crop. Fourthly, the alleged eye witness was admittedly having the friendship with the complainant and further that his father was the tenant of the complainant and another witness named in the FIR was not examined. Fifthly, the injury on the person of respondent noticed by the doctor and police remained unexplained. Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer has vehemently argued that the statement of the injured cannot be lightly brushed aside and further his unimpeded testimony proves the case of the prosecution. Contra, Shri Rupinder Singh, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of the acquittal. 4 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and reappraised the evidence on record. PW2 Atul Singh complainant has caused the major dent in the prosecution case by deposing that his maize crop was destroyed by the cattle of the respondent on 29th February, 1996. It is a fact that no maize crop is sown in the month of February. It is only the wheat crop which could be sown in the month of February and further the alleged damage has not been shown in the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer. The alleged dispute is shown to have taken place on the roadside at Point `A’, but no fields have been depicted in and around the said place in the site plan. The perusal of the site plan shows that the incident had taken place in the middle of the village. Thus a very foundation story of prosecution as propounded by the complainant stands shaken. The time of alleged incident has not been stated. The respondent was also examined by the doctor at the request of the police, it is incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to bring forth the truth of the actual incident, which otherwise remained suppressed. PW3 Davinder Kumar appears to be an interested witness, his testimony also suffers from the same defect. He stated that the incident had taken place in the fields, whereas the investigation revealed another place. Further the Investigating Officer has not elicited the opinion from the 5 medical expert whether the tooth bite-pattern found on the person of the complainant matches with the tooth pattern of accused in order to connect her with the alleged offence. The story of the prosecution became more doubtful by the statement of the complainant himself that when he tried to remove the cattle from the field, the respondent had pelted the stones from a distance from the roadside, thereafter it is not explained how she came nearer to the complainant and he allowed her to bite his arm. Since the real nexus of the incident appears to have been suppressed, the prosecution case cannot be believed. The learned trial court has rightly recorded the findings of acquittal on the basis of the above evidence, which requires no interference, accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The respondent is discharged of her bail bonds entered upon by her at any time during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. November 11, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.