IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 234 of 1997 Date of decision: 17.08.2010 __________________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh … Appellant. Versus Puran Chand & another … Respondents. __________________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. V.K. Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For respondent : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikrant Chandel. __________________________________________________________________ Justice R.B. Misra, J. (Oral) The present Criminal Appeal has come up for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in reference to judgment dated 10.09.1996, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 54-11/91 under Section 326/325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, acquitting the alleged accused/ respondents. 2. In order to adjudicate the present appeal, it is necessary to give the factual background of the case. As per prosecution story, on 2.3.1991, one Shri Singh had gone to his in-law’s house at Rupaina. A person named Kewal aged 12 years came and told that the accused Puran wants to meet him in his shop. Shri Singh went to the shop where Puran Chand, Darshana, Madan, Desh Raj, Krishan Chand, Bhuri Singh, Sansaro Devi etc., were present. The accused Puran Chand and Darshana without any basis, tried to give blows of Drat upon Shri Singh. Shri Singh snatched the “Drati” from their hands. Meanwhile, Desh Raj and Madan also snatched the “Drati” from the hand of Shri Singh and gave back to the accused. The accused gave blows of “Drati” upon head and legs of Shri Singh resulting into grievous injuries on his person. The matter was reported to the police on the next day by mother-in-law of the accused namely Maya Devi and FIR was registered against the accused. After investigation, the challan was presented in the Court. 3. In order to prove his case, prosecutions examine nine prosecution witnesses. PW-1 injured Shri Singh and his mother-in- law, Maya Devi, who made complaint before the police has appeared as PW-2. PW-3 Bhuru Ram, PW-4 Krishan Chand and PW-5 Sansaro Devi are the witnesses to the occurrence. PW-6, Chunni Lal and PW-7 Baldev Raj are the witnesses to the recovery of the “Drati”, whereas the investigation officer is PW-8 Jeet Singh. PW-9 Dr. V.K. Pathak is a Radiologist who conducted X-ray of the skull of the injured. PW-9 is Dr. K.S. Katoch who conducted the medical examination of Shri Singh. 4. PW-1, Shri Singh has stated that he has gone to Rupaina in his in-laws house and the accused called him through Shri Kewal Singh. When he went to the shop of accused Puran Chand, Darshana Devi, Madan, Desh Raj, Bhuri Singh, Krishan Chand and Sansaro etc., were present in the Shop. Puran Chand came at his back and gave “Drati” blow upon his leg and pushed him in the shop, where he again gave another blow of “Drati”. PW-1 has also deposed that 5-6 blows of “Drati” were given on his head which resulted into oozing out of the blood. 2 5. PW-3, Bhuru Ram, on the other hand has made an entirely different statement that at about 11-12 O’clock in the morning he was standing before the shop of Puran Chand and the latter told him (Bhuru Ram) to enquire as to why Shri Singh has eve-tested his wife. Thereafter, accused (Puran Chand) went to call Shri Singh and brought him back at the shop. He has also stated that Shri Singh abused Puran Chand as to how, he dared to call him and Bhuru came out. According to him, in the shop Madan, Shri Singh and the accused were present and he did not see anybody fighting therein. It has been admitted by PW-3 that Shri Singh caught hold the wife of Puran. The deposition made by Shri Bhuru Ram has not at all stated that a person named Kawel went to call Shri Singh who in turn was given beating with “Drati” by the accused. This witness has thus, not supported the prosecution case and narrated other facts and surprisingly, the prosecution has not declared him hostile so as to elucidate the true facts. Therefore, there are major contradictions between the statements of PW-1 Shri Singh and PW-3 Bhuru Ram, which go to the root of the case. 6. PW-1, Shri Singh has nowhere stated in his deposition in the Court that he snatched the “Drati” from the hands of both the accused and from his hand Madan and Desh Raj snatched and gave back to accused. If Madan and Desh Raj had also snatched the “Drati” from the hand of the complainant, they should also been made the accused in this case and there is a delay in the registration of the case for more than 21 hours and the delay has not been properly explained. The learned trial Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. 7. After going through the prosecution witnesses and material on record as well as the impugned judgment, we find that 3 prosecution has failed to prove its case and to bring home the guilt to the accused and the learned Trial Court has carefully analyzed the prosecution witnesses and has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. In our considered view, there is no scope of interference in the findings given by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. 8. The bail bonds furnished by the accused/ respondents are hereby discharged. ( R.B. Misra ), J. (V.K. Sharma), J. August 17, 2010 Pritam 4