1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. A. No. 679 of 2002. Date of decision: June 30, 2009 _________________________________________________ State of HP …Appellant. Versus Ratti Mohan & Ors …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.B.Misra , Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr Addl. A.G with Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. For the Respondents: Ms. Romesh Verma, Advocate. R.B. Misra, Judge (Oral) Heard. The present criminal appeal has arisen consequent upon the grant of leave under section 378(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to the judgment dated 7.6.2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, HP in criminal case No. 27-2 of 1998 for the alleged involvement of accused under sections 451, 323, 34 IPC. 2. In order to adjudicate the present criminal appeal, it is necessary to give brief facts of the prosecution case. It appears that on 25.5.98, complainant, Tanjin Negi, reported to the Police Station, Sangla that his cow was grazing in the land of accused and the accused persons Ratti Mohan and his brother Ranbir Singh started beating the cow and when subsequently complainant asked the reasons for beating the cow, accused persons abused him and thereafter went away. At about 8 .p.m, same day, accused Ratti 2 Mohan came in the courtyard of the house of the complainant and called the complainant. When Sh. Tanjan Dorje, brother of the complainant came out, accused person started beating him, as a result of which, he received injuries on his left eye, forehead, cheek, lips, teeth and when the complainant also went there, he was also beaten, as a result of which he received injuries on his nose and other parts of the body. When the mother of the complaint came to rescue them, she was also beaten by the accused. The case was registered and on completion of investigation, police challan under section sections 451, 323, 34 IPC was prepared and the case was sent for trial against the alleged respondent-accused. 3. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many 6 witnesses, whereas the alleged accused have denied the prosecution case in their testimony recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. 4.. Following questions were formulated for determination i) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused persons with common intention of all, committed house trespass in order to commit an offence and also voluntarily caused simple hurt on the person of complainant. Sh.Tanjin Negi and others. ? ii) Final order. Question No.1 was considered for determination and was answered in negative and on second question, respondents- accused were acquitted accordingly. 5. In order to prove point No.1, prosecution has examined three eye witnesses, namely PW-2, Tanjin Negi 3 complainant, PW-4 Chhokum Devi, mother of the complainant and PW-5 Anmol Singh, relation of the father of the complainant. 6. PW-2, Tanjin Negi, PW-2 deposed that on 25.5.98 at about 7 PM, his cow and ox were grazing at Gangarang near a path and when accused Ratti Mohan came there, had given beatings to the cow and ox with stones and dandas. In the meantime, complainant reached there and asked the reason of beating the cow and ox. Upon this, accused started abusing him. At about 8 PM, same day, accused Ratti Mohan came to the house of the complainant and asked him to come out from the house. Upon this, elder brother of the complainant came near the gate and accused Ratti Mohan after entering the gate, started beating his brother Sh. Tanjin Dorje. Hearing his cry, his mother reached there and saw that the blood was oozing from the cheeks and teeth of his brother. Thereafter, other accused also came there and gave beating to his mother and to him with the help of some iron dagger and gave its blow on his nose, consequent upon, blood was oozing from the nose. In the meantime, accused Arjun Singh removed his belt and handed over to accused Ratti Mohan and thereafter accused Ratti Mohan started beating him with the belt. His mother was also pushed away, as a result of which, she fell down on the ground. Thereafter, matter was reported to the police. 7. PW-1, Parkash Dutt, S.I prepared the challan. PW-3 Dr. Ashish Shaba medically examined Sh. Tanjin Negi and Tanjin Dorje and issued M.L.Cs Ext PW-3/A and Ex PW-3/B respectively. PW-6 ASI, Mohinder Singh, I.O. investigated the case after preparing the site plan and recording the statements of witnesses. 4 8. After going through he testimony of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, the prosecution has found that there are contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses as well as injuries said to have been inflicted on the body of the complainant and the suggestions have also not been indicated properly. Therefore, on the basis of material and analysis of the prosecution witnesses, trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt. 9. In my respectful consideration, I am of the considered view hat there are apparent contractions regarding time of grazing of cow and ox, the manner of occurrence and also the inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses as far as arrival of accused and complainant, manner of inflicting injuries to the complainant, his brother and mother. Therefore, the view taken by the learned trial court is rightly correct. In the facts and circumstances, I find no occasion to interfere in the verdict of learned trial court, therefore, I see no merit in the present appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. June 30,,2009(sl) ( R.B. Misra), Judge.