IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 585 of 2001 Date of decision: 29/9/2008 State of Himachal Pradesh … Appellant. Vs. Satish Kumar and others. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dharamshala, dated 17th March, 2001, whereby he has acquitted all the accused of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 451, 452, 147 and 149 IPC. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as initially set up in the F.I.R. lodged at the instance of complainant, Nirmala Devi, was that at about 7.30 PM all the accused formed an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the house of complainat, Nirmala Devi. They demanded some money from Nirmala Devi. It was alleged that accused Madan Lal armed with a Danda attacked Nirmala Devi and her niece Sunita and the remaining accused attacked the complainant and her brother-in-law (husband’s elder brother) Prakash Chand. When the complainant party raised an alarm the accused fled away from the spot. According to the first information report, the complainant, her niece Sunita and her 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 brother-in-law were attacked in the Varandah and daughter Mithu in the Kitchen. On the basis of this information given by Nirmala Devi, FIR Ext. PW-2/A was registered. Investigation was done and after completion of the investigation, the challan was filed in the Court. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution to prove its case has examined Nirmala Devi, Sunita Devi and Parkash Chand. In Court these witnesses have given a totally different version from the one given in the F.I.R. According to the version given in Court accused Madan Lal alone first entered the house of complainant, Nirmala Devi. He called her brother-in-law Parkash Chand into the Varanda and slapped him without any rhyme or reason. Thereafter, accused Madan Lal gave 3-4 fist blows to Sunita and left the house. According to Nirmala Devi thereafter the accused came to her house alongwith other accused and then attacked complainant Nirmala Devi and Mithu in the kitchen. This version of Nirmala Devi is also supported by Sunita Devi and Parkash Chand. There is an inherent contradiction in the two versions. In the first version, as stated in the F.I.R. all the accused came together. In the version given in Court it is stated that Madan Lal came alone, slapped Parkash Chand and beat up Sunita Devi. Thereafter, he came alongwith the other accused and then beat the complainant and her daughter also. The reason for this appears to be that the prosecution wants to hide the genesis of the dispute. Why did the fight take place? There is virtually no explanation for the same. If Madan Lal had come alone, it cannot be believed that the complainant, her brother-in-law, niece and daughter could not have over powered him. Madan Lal is alleged to be armed with 3 a Danda. The said danda has not been taken into possession nor any explanation has been given as to why it could not be recovered. No person from the neighbourhood has been associated with the investigation or examined in the Court. Admittedly, there are other houses near the house of the complainant and there is no explanation why independent witnesses could not be associated. According to PW-1 Dr. Gayatri Mahajan, all the injuries on the person of Sunita and Nirmala Devi are simple. Sunita has suffered three bruises: one on the chest, one on the knee and one just above the ankle, whereas Nirmala Devi has some abrasions on the left wrist. These injuries are simple in nature but cannot be related to any attack by a Danda or even by fist blows etc. No fist blow is given on the wrist or on the ankle. This casts a doubt on the prosecution story. Keeping in view the aforesaid inherent inconsistencies in the prosecution case, I find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly rejected. Bail bonds of the accused are discharged. 29th September, 2008. (Deepak Gupta), J. ™