1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 427 of 2001. Date of decision: 18-7-2008. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant. -versus- Dalip Singh and 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 respondents: : Mr. B.C. Negi,Advocate _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J. (oral) In this appeal, the State has challenged the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court in Case No. 480/1 of 1996 decide don 31-1-2001 under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 25-7-1996 at about 8.00 P.M in village Lehri Sarail, the respondents, in furtherance of their common intention, had caused the grievous hurt to complainant Smt. Ishro Devi. She reported the matter to the Police on the basis of which F.I.R. Exhibit PW5/A was registered on her statement Exhibit PW5/A. She was medically examined. Doctor issued the medico legal certificate Exhibit PW1/B. Police reported the site plan Exhibit PW5/C of the place of alleged incident. Doctor opined that the injuries sustained by her were grievous. Thus after Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 recording the statements of the witnesses, the challan was presented in the court for trial against the respondents under the afore-said sections. The respondents were charge-sheeted and they pleaded not guilty to the charges. The prosecution examined its witnesses and at the end of the trial, the respondents were acquitted on the ground that the statement of the injured is quite contradictory and does not inspire confidence. The other witnesses PW2 Bimla Devi and PW6 Barfi Devi are also not reliable and PW3 Rajesh Kumar has contradicted his version. The complainant stated that there were about 40 to 50 persons on the spot but no independent and dis-interested witness was examined out of them. Therefore, the case of the prosecution did not inspire confidence. PW7 Ishro Devi who was carrying pregnancy of about twenty-four weeks and had sustained the simple injury not relatable to the accident. Shri J.S. Guleria, Law Officer has vehemently argued that the witnesses of the prosecution are reliable and have given an inconsistent version and the learned trial Court had wrongly rejected their testimonies. I have gone through the record of the case . In the F.I.R. Exhibit PW5/B, the complainant has stated that some altercation was going on between Roop Singh and Maru Ram. In the meantime, the respondents came intoxicated in her compound and started abusing her. When she told them not to use abusive language. Kashmir Singh respondent gave a kick blow on her stomach and the respondent Dalip Singh pushed her aside with the result, she became unconscious. Thereafter she was taken to Community Health Centre, Bharari. As PW7, she has stated that some 3 altercation was going-on between Maru Ram and Roop Singh of their village. In the mean time, respondents came there who were boozed. PW6 Barfi Devi, her mother-in-law, asked them not to use the abusive language but they threatened her and she was given two/three kick blows by respondent Kashmir Singh and Nain Singh respondent caught hold of her from her neck and there after she became unconscious. Then she was taken to the District Hospital Bilaspur from where she was referred to Shimla. In her cross- examination, she has stated that Gita Devi and Maru Ram both were present on the spot but neither Maru Ram nor Gita Devi were examined to substantiate their version. She also stated that there were about 40 persons who had witnessed the alleged incident but none of the persons who was independent and dis-interested was examined. She further stated that her nephew Naresh came with a Lathi and hit Dalip on his hand for which a case is going-on against him under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. PW6 Barfi Devi, her mother-in-law, has stated that at the time of alleged incident, it had gone dark. The fight was going on between Simro and Gita Devi. PW2 Bimla Devi has stated that when Ishro Devi was given a kick blow by Kashmir respondent, respondent Gian Singh ran after the complainant Devi and used abusive language. After this, she entered in the house. She also stated that respondent Dalip Singh gave two slaps to her as a result of which she fell unconscious. In her cross- examination, she gave another version that the quarrel was taking place between Gita and Roop Singh and at that time, Smt. Sureshro, Bhimi Raj and Naresh Kumar were also present, then corrected herself that Bhimi Raj and Naresh Kumar were not present. PW4 Sher Singh is a ward member. He came to know about the alleged occurrence on the next day. PW1 Dr. T.S. Chandel had examined 4 the injured Ishro Devi and found only contusion over abdominal wall below umbilicus of the size of 2 cm x 2 cm. Since she was pregnant, she was sent to the Mandi Hospital for ultra sound where the ultra sound machine was out of order and then she was referred to I.G.M. C. Shimla. In his opinion, the injury aforesaid was simple in nature but it could have been dangerous to life had there been any injury to the foetus but in the instant case, no injury was found on the foetus and she delivered a male baby thereafter. On the close scrutiny of the evidence, I find that there are material contradiction between the FIR and the narration of the injured made in the Court. Her witnesses are contradicting each other sharply on material points, as such, on the strength of the above evidence, the respondents cannot be convicted for the offence charged. The findings of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Magistrate are born out from the record which requires no interference. Hence the appeal is dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon them at any time during the trial of this case. (Surinder Singh) Judge. July 18, 2008. (bm)