1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 546 of 2001 Date of Decision: 24.07.2008 ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P … Appellant Versus Jagdish Chand alias Jagoo & others …. Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1?. No For the appellant: Mr.J.S.Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondent: None. ____________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J . Respondents were tried and acquitted of the offences, punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No. 118 of 2000 dated 18.9.2000 in police station, Shahpur. Their acquittal has been assailed in the instant appeal by the appellant- State on the grounds that the courts below did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in its right perspective but at the same time has set unrealistic standards to evaluate the direct and cogent prosecution evidence, The respondents were put on trial, on the allegation that on 18.9.2000 around 6.30 p.m. Saveen Kumar was going to bazar where he met Pardhan Suresh Kumar, who informed him that some water dispute had Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 arisen at his residence. Thereafter the complainant went to his accompanied by Suresh Kumar where they met Kamla Devi mother and Ramana Devi sister of the complainant. When they were in the compound Bal Krishan s/o Sh. Bir Singh was also found standing there. In the meantime, respondent Jagdish Chand came there armed with a danda in his hand and hit the complainant on his head. When his mother tried to intervene, he gave a lathi blow on her left ear. Suresh Kumar aforesaid raised hue and cry. In the meantime ward member Madan Lal arrived at the spot. Thereafter, other respondents, who are family members of the accused, came with hockey sticks and Kirpan and started giving beating to the complainant. Hockey-sticks and Kirpan were snatched by the ward member Madan Lal from them. Thereafter, the respondents fled away from the spot. The complainant lodged FIR Ex.PB on the same day and was medically examined by PW4 Dr.Mohan Singh. Doctor noticed incised wound on the left side parietal region, and an abrasion on the left arm of the complainant. X-ray of the skull was also taken but no fracture was detected. In the opinion of the Doctor, injury No.1 was caused by sharp edged weapon and injury No.2 caused with a hard and blunt weapon thus issued the medico-legal-certificate Ex.PW4/A. Police had visited the spot on the next day and prepared the site plan Ex.PW6/A and also took into possession the bunian Ex.P1, belonging to the complainant vide recovery memo Ex.PW1/A, danda Ex.P2 produced by Ramna Devi took into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW2/A, Hocky stick Ex.P3 and Kirpan Ex.P4 were also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW5/A from Ward Member Madan Lal. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing the investigation of the case, a challan was presented in the court for trial. The respondents were charge-sheeted for the offences, punishable under 3 sections 147,148,149 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses. The respondents were also examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their case was of denial simplicitor. No evidence in defense was led. At the end of the trial, the respondents were acquitted on the ground that the evidence of the prosecution is contradictory, which was unworthy of credence. Shri Guleria, learned Law Officer has forcefully argued that the complainant has corroborated the prosecution version and the Doctor has proved the injuries on the victim. The other witnesses have lent strength to the version of the complainant, therefore, acquittal of the respondents was wrong. Contra, learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial court, urged that there is no ground for interference in the impugned judgment for the reason that findings of the learned trial court are borne out from the record. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record. In the instant case, Kamla Devi mother of the complainant has not been examined. PW5 Suresh Kumar (Pradhan), who was alleged to be with the complainant, did not support the case of the prosecution at all, therefore, he was declared hostile. In the cross-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor, he half heartedly supported the case of the prosecution but In the cross-examination he has shattered whatever the learned Public Prosecutor was able to extract from him. He stated that no quarrel took place in his presence. Sister of the complainant Ramna Devi has given another version. She did not say about giving beating to her 4 brother PW1 Saveen Kumar by the respondents, but according to her after one year of the marriage when she was coming back to her house, Sushma Devi met her on the way and taunted her with respect to her make up and money being spent. With respect to the incident, he stated that that on 18.9.2000, when she was taking the water again Nirmala and Sushma taunted her and passed the same remarks as made earlier. Thereafter. Sushma and her mother started giving beating to her and many people had gathered there. Other respondents came there later and started beating her brother with lathis and kirpan. She had snatched the lathi from them. In the cross-examination she has admitted that she was not in good terms with Sushma since long. She further stated that many people had gathered there but she did not know the names of the villagers whereas PW1 Saveen Kumar has deposed that Pradhan Suresh Kumar had informed him about the dispute, which had taken place near the water tap. On reaching there, he found his mother Kamla and PW2 Ramna Sister standing in the compound. Respondent Jagdish came there and slapped his mother. On this Suresh Kumar Pradhan intervened but Jagdish hit him (PW1) with a danda and he fell down. The complainant was beaten by Pankaj and his son-in-law, thereafter he became unconscious. In his cross-examination he has stated where the incident had taken place, about 30-40 people had gathered there. He further admitted that his sister Ramna Devi had run away with a muslim boy and both of them were arrested by Nurpur police. Since the people started talking about it, which caused humiliation to them. He expressed his ignorance that his sister abused the respondent Sushma on account of aforesaid incident. He further stated in his cross-examination that except slap given by Jagdish Chand respondent to his mother he did not mention anything else in the FIR nor named the respondent Vidya Sagar. 5 Since the Pradhan Suresh Kumar did not support the prosecution case, therefore, against the aforesaid contradictory and conflicting evidence, Madan Lal Ward Member was a material witness, who was not examined. PW4 Dr. Mohan Singh has categorically stated that in injury No.1 mentioned in the medico-legal-certificate cannot be caused by the weapon shown to him in the court. Therefore, in these circumstances when the prosecution evidence regarding the incident is highly contradictory, it cannot be said that the complainant had sustained injury in the manner he alleged. Thus it causes a dent in the authenticity of the prosecution case. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any perversity in the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial court, therefore, the appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. The respondents are discharged of the bail bonds, entered upon by them at any stage of the proceedings of the trial. July 24,2008 (Surinder Singh), J. (D)