1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 606 of 2001. Date of Decision: 4-9-2008. ____________________________________________________________ State of H. P. Appellant. Versus Lajan Devi and others. Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? Yes. For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondents : Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate vice Shri Ajay Chandel, Advocate. ______________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (oral) Heard and gone through the record. The State felt aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed in Police Challan No. 154-II/98 decided by the learned trial Court on 29.1.2001 under Sections 147, 149, 506, 323, of Indian Penal Code. In short, the prosecution case has been that on 1.3.1998 at about 7.00 a.m., in village Brarta, Shiv Ram (PW3) was going to provide fodder to his cattle in his cow-shed. While he was passing through the passage in front of the house of the respondents, it is alleged that the respondents caught and gave beatings to him with Dandas and stones. He was rescued by Hem Raj and his daughter Sarika Devi. The respondents alleged to have threatened him with dire consequences. The reason for giving beatings is stated to be that the in the assembly elections, the complainant was the supporter of Mohinder Singh to which the respondents were opposed. The case was registered and the complainant Shiv Ram was medically examined at R.H. Sarkaghat. On his medical examination, the Doctor found six simple injuries Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 and he was also complaining pain in the chest and left knee. The police prepared the site plan Exhibit PW5/A. After recording the statements of the witness and completion of the challan, it was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondents. The respondents were charge-sheeted for the offences aforesaid. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Hem Raj, PW2 Kumari Sarika the daughter of Shiv Ram, PW3 Shiv Ram, PW4 Dr. Ramesh Chauhan besides examining Ishar Dass ASI (PW4) and Ram Singh Investigating Officer Sub Inspector (PW5). The respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the incident as alleged. According to them, it was the complainant party consisting of about sixteen persons who attacked upon them in their house and they lodged the F.I.R. Exhibit DB regarding the same incident which is pending trial. They also sustained the injuries. They were medically examined which fact has also been admitted by Dr. Ramesh Chauhan (PW6) aforesaid but no defense was led. At the end of the trial, the respondents were acquitted of the offences charged on the ground that there was cross case regarding the same incident and the said respondents had also sustained injuries which fact has been admitted by the Doctor as well as the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer had also admitted the fact that the complainant party had entered into the house of the respondents and gave them beatings and the cross case under Section 147, 148, 149, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is pending trial. Further, that the injuries caused to the respondents have not been explained and also that there was a possibility of the present case being counter blast of the case launched by the respondents which fact could not be ruled out. 3 Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer has vehemently argued that the injured as well as the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and it was a fit case for conviction of the respondents. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised and have carefully examined the evidence on record. It is an admitted fact that regarding the same incident, the respondents had also lodged the FIR Exhibit DB against the complainant Shiv Ram, Hem Raj and Sarika including eleven other persons as is evident from the list Exhibit DA of the accused filed by the respondents. PW5 Ram Singh SI, the investigating Officer has frankly admitted that the complainant party had given beatings to the respondents in their house. PW6 Dr. also admits this fact. Further, in the instant case, the site plan regarding the alleged place of incident was admittedly prepared at the instance of the complainant shifting the place of occurrence to the passage in the front of the house of the respondents. Pointing out of the place by the complainant for preparing the site plan is also hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is not a legal evidence. Further the statement of Hans Raj if read with the statement of Sarika, makes the case of the prosecution all the more doubtful, as according to him, he reached after about half an hour of the incident and Sarika stated that to have arrived at the spot after Hans Raj The conclusion of learned trial Court that possibility of the present case being counter blast could not be ruled out from the facts appearing in the case appears to be correct. In view of the above, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are reasonable and are borne out from the record. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal does not call for any interference. As such, the appeal is dismissed. (Surinder Singh) Judge. September 4, 2008. (bm) 4