IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 347 of 2002 Date of decision: 7.1.2009. State of H.P. …. Appellant. Vs. Jagdish Chand and others. ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the appellant: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Pankaj Negi vice Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arki, dated 25.04.2001, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. At the outset, it may be noticed that the relations between the complainant and the accused are not at all cordial. This fact is not denied by any side. The complainant lodged a complaint with the police on 7.1.1997 to the effect that on 6.1.1997 at about 7.00 p.m he was returning to his home from bus-stand Arki. When he was near the house of accused Sunder, all the accused came out of the house of the accused Sunder and stopped the complainant. They asked him why he had given evidence against the accused. The complainant replied that he had only deposed the truth in Court. On hearing this the accused beat the complainant with fist and kick blows and also with Dandas. On hearing the cries of the complainant his wife Kalawati and Paras Ram reached the spot and rescued him. On the basis of the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment . yes. 2 complaint, F.I.R Ext.PW-6/A was lodged. The investigation was conducted and after trial accused were acquitted. Hence the present appeal by the State. Complainant Dila Ram appeared as PW-1. He has repeated what he had stated in the complaint. He states that other than his wife 3-4 other persons reached the spot and one Paras Ram rescued him from the accused. According to him after the occurrence had taken place when he was sitting in his courtyard one of the accused had thrown a stone causing injury on his nose. He reported the matter to the police next day and thereafter gone to Shimla for medical check-up. In this case, the accused also led evidence. Both PW-1 and 2 admitted that they are also facing a trial with regard to the same incident before the Gram Panchayat. It also stands proved on record that accused Jagdish Chand has also sustained injuries in the said fight. The complainant has given no explanation as to how Jagdish Chand suffered the injuries. It is admitted that the house of the complainant is only about two kilometers from the Police Station and therefore, there is no plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the F.I.R, which was recorded next day at about 11 a.m., i.e. 16 hours after the incident took place. The stand of the accused is that the complainant was under the influence of liquor and when accused Jagdish Kumar came from the side of the Bazar complainant Dila Ram stopped him and asked him why he had made complaint against Dila Ram. Thereafter Dila Ram had attacked Jagdish. DW-1 Neki Ram and DW-2 Rama Nand have also supported the defence version. 3 Keeping in view the inconsistency in the statement of the complainant and his wife, various contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution case, the learned trial Court rightly gave the benefit of doubt to the accused persons. I find no reason to interfere in the judgement of the learned trial Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. January 7, 2009 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™