IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 473/2004 Date of decision: 22.7.2011 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Sobha Ram ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr. A.K. Bansal Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. B.K. Malhotra, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents in criminal case No. 142/1 of 2000 decided on 18.6.2004, by way of filing the present appeal. 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 3. In short, prosecution case can be stated thus. On 12.8.2000 at about 11 p.m. in village Behna, complainant Prabhi Devi was urinating in a field near 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - her house to which respondent Kaushalya Devi raised objection claiming that portion of the land to be her own. Thereafter other accused persons came armed with sticks and attacked the complainant resulting into injuries on her back and legs. She raised hue and cry. On hearing it, Vindra Devi (PW7) her sister-in-law came to the spot and intervened in the matter. Respondent Gaurju Devi is alleged to have pelted stones on the slab of her house which rebounded and hit Vindra Devi aforesaid on her shoulder. Respondents are alleged to have criminally intimidated the complainant. 4. The matter was reported to police and report Ext. PW3/A was lodged by the complainant which culminated into the FIR Ext. PW9/A. Police investigated the case. Complainant and Vindra Devi both were got medically examined. There was fracture of right parietal bone of the complainant as such police included Section 325 to the other Sections 323, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code. 5. Police also prepared the site plan of the alleged place of incident. After obtaining the Medico Legal Certificate of the accused and after completing the investigation, presented the challan - 3 - in the Court for the trial of the respondents for the aforesaid offences. 6. Finding a prima facie case against the respondents, they were accordingly chargesheeted having acted in furtherance of their common intention. 7. Respondents abjured their guilt. They claimed to be tried. 8. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their case was denial simplicitor. However, from the trend of the cross-examination, it appears that there was an old enmity inter se the parties on account of some pending litigation. 9. At the end of the trial, respondents were acquitted on the basis of the contradictions appearing in the statements of the witnesses which, according to the learned trial Court were material contradictions rendering the case of the prosecution doubtful. 10. A perusal of the testimony of the complainant Prabhi Devi shows that she deviated from her initial complaint made by her in terms of Ext. PW3/A. She alleged that when she was urinating in - 4 - the field, respondent No. 2 appeared there and objected to it but this fact has been totally denied by her when examined in the Court. Rather when confronted with this portion of the statement, she specifically stated that she did not make such statement to the police. Further, according to her, at the time of the alleged incident many villagers had gathered there and she named Niko and Prabhu specifically who had witnessed the occurrence. But none of them were examined to lend strength to her version. Further, in the cross- examination, in the same breath she deposed that none of the villagers had witnessed the alleged incident which makes her testimony shrouded with suspicion. 11. PW6 Soniya Devi also stated that Prabhu Niko Kala Devi and Hukam Singh intervened to relieve the complainant from the clutches of the respondents but none of these witnesses were examined. She also changed the situs of the incident. According to the complainant, incident had taken place in the court-yard of her house whereas in cross-examination PW2 stated that the complainant was standing in the middle of the door of her house. She did not make any mention of - 5 - pelting of stones and sustaining of injury by Vindra Devi. 12. PW3 Vindra Devi had also to tell a different story. Her statement does not synchronize with the statement of the complainant. It is general in nature and further according to her, the fight took place in the verandah of the house of the complainant. 13. PW10 Dola Ram has also been examined as an eye witness. He stated that he heard some commotion and came out from his house. He saw that the respondents were pelting stones on the house of the complainant and they were beatings to the complainant with dandas and on getting the injuries, complainant became unconscious. Whereas the complainant did not say anything about the fact that she became unconscious. In cross-examination he stated that 5/6 persons had relieved the complainant from the clutches of the respondents but he expressed his inability to disclose their names. He further tried to clarify that he had named them to the police. He also stated that respondent Sobha Ram had dealt 10/15 danda blows on his head whereas about this fact, there is neither statement of the complainant in terms of Ext. PW3/A nor any other - 6 - witness testified it during the trial of this case nor it has been the case of prosecution. He was also confronted with the statement recorded by the Police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to this effect but there was no mention about it. He admitted about the pending of an old litigation inter se the parties prior to the alleged incident. 14. On the critical examination of the aforesaid evidence, the case of the prosecution is highly shrouded by the suspicious circumstances about the nature of the injuries having been sustained by PW5 Parwati Devi and PW7 Vindra Devi. The prosecution case lacks probity as such the acquittal of the respondents cannot be interfered with. 15. The appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. 16. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them, at any time during the proceedings of this case. July 22, 2011 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge.