IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 535 of 2003 Date of decision: 01.07.2010 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Bali Ram and others … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Seema Guleria, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 3, Shimla, dated 13.6.2003, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341 and 506 I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 6.1.1999, a written complaint was submitted to S.P. Shimla by Laxmi Devi that at about 2.30/3.00 P.M., she was coming back to her house and the respondents stopped the goats belonging to them and asked her sisters Monika and Manju not to graze the goats in their land. They gave beatings to her sisters and a telephonic call was given to her, on which she came to the spot, on which the respondent Bali Ram and his 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 two sons and others gave beatings to them with Dandas. She suffered injuries on her head and blood oozed out. She became unconscious and five days have passed away and accordingly, the report was lodged by the complainant, on which a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed under the sections mentioned above and the respondents were tried by the learned trial Court, leading to their acquittal. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. The first point which has to be considered is that the occurrence in question had taken place on 2.1.199 and the complaint was lodged with the S.P. Shimla on 6.1.1999 by the complainant. The complainant does not assign any reason as to why the complaint was not lodged immediately after the occurrence or that the police had refused to register the case and there is no explanation whatsoever on record in regard to the delay in lodging of the FIR. This has clearly been admitted by PW-4 Laxmi Devi, complainant, that there is long standing enmity in between the parties and, therefore, the evidence of prosecution witnesses has to be appreciated with more care and caution, in view of the strained relations in between the parties. 5. The complainant who has been examined as PW-4 admits that she learnt about the occurrence on telephone from her sister and came to the spot and four boys who are present in Court, but has not been named by her, gave her beatings. She identified four accused persons in the Court, but could not state about their names. She further stated that she was given beatings on her head and damage was caused to her ear. Thereafter, she became 3 unconscious and lodged the report subsequently. She does not state the manner in which injuries were inflicted on her person, by which of the accused persons and over which part of the body. 6. PW-1 Monika, the younger sister of PW-4 Laxmi Devi, has stated that she was present in her area alongwith her sister Manju and all the respondents caught hold of their goats and took them away and when she enquired, she and her sister were given beatings. After sometime, her sister came on a telephonic message. She identified those four persons out of the respondents, who had dragged her sister and had given beatings to her. She did not state as to which of the accused persons gave beatings to her or her sister or on which part of the body or number of blows given to them. The other sister, namely, Manju was not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them and in view of the fact that she was also an eye witness and had suffered injuries, leads to an adverse inference which is being drawn against the prosecution that in case she was examined, she would not have supported the prosecution story. The statements of the complainant herself as well as her sister cannot be said to be such to hold that the prosecution case has been fully proved particularly when no charge has been framed in regard to the injuries on the person of the complainant and her sister and, therefore, the statement of Medical Officer PW-6 Dr. Rakesh Kumar examined in the case is not relevant. 7. It has come up in the testimony of PW-11 ASI Beant Singh, Investigating Officer, that as per the investigation conducted by him at the spot when the occurrence had taken place, other people of the village were present at the spot, but he had not recorded the 4 statement of any such witness. Therefore, non-recording of the statements of any independent witnesses, who had witnessed the occurrence and non-production in the Court leads to an adverse inference, which is being drawn against the prosecution for withholding of material evidence. 8. On appraisal of the above evidence, it is clear that relations in between the parties are strained. It has also come up on record that a report was also lodged about the occurrence by the accused persons, but there is nothing on record to show as to the fate of the report lodged by the accused persons. The relations in between the parties are strained and keeping in view of the statements of the witnesses, guilt of the respondents cannot be said to have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. The findings recorded in this regard by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 9. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ), July 01, 2010 Judge (BSS) 5