HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No. : 559 of 2003 Decided on: 18.6.2010 State of Himachal Pradesh ……… Appellant. Versus Akshay Kumar ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.S.D. Vasudeva, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (I), Dharamshala, dated 28.8.2003, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 451, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 14.4.2003, at about 10.15 p.m., a report was lodged with the police by one Smt.Shakuntla Devi that today at about 9.00 p.m., she was present in her house and there was a knock at the door and when she opened the door, she found the respondent standing outside who gave abuses to her, enquired about her husband and came inside the shop while giving her abuses. He also inflicted blow with some object on her left arm and blood started oozing out and when she raised an alarm, her children came there. Other persons also came there and the respondent was taken to his house by his brother ___________________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Chhotu and Arvind etc. On this report, a case was registered and after medical examination of the plaintiff and on completion of the investigation, the challan was filed against the respondent under the above mentioned Sections, who was tried by the learned trial Court leading to his acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, it is clear that the solitary statement of the complainant Shakuntla Devi as PW-2 has not been believed by the learned trial Court since it has come up in her statement that other persons had also gathered at the spot when she raised an alarm. The Investigating Officer PW- 6 SI Prem Chand also admits that the complainant had told him that many people had gathered at the spot at that time, but he had not associated any of these persons or sought the names of these persons from the complainant. Therefore, the solitary statement of PW-2 Shakuntla Devi, complainant, has not been corroborated by any other witness. 5. The prosecution had also examined the son of the complainant, namely, PW-3 Anil Kumar, who was held to be the competent witness by the Court. He has, however, given a different version of the occurrence when he stated that the respondent came to the spot, threw stones on their shutter on which he and his sister went out and when they opened the shutter, the respondent gave beatings to them. It was never the case of the complainant that any stones were thrown or that her children were also given beatings by the respondent - 3 - at that time and, therefore, a different version has been given by this witness. He also stated that his mother was given beatings at that time. In the report lodged with the police, the complainant has only mentioned about one injury on her left arm, but in cross examination, she stated that she cannot say that if this injury was sustained by her as a result of breaking of the bangles or blow by the respondent. She never stated that the bangles were also broken at that time or she suffered injuries due to the breaking of the bangles. 6. The Medical Officer PW-1 Dr.K.S. Katoch has admitted that injuries No.2 and 3 upon the person of the complainant are possible by broken bangles and, thus, the possibility that these injuries may have been sustained by the complainant in some scuffle that may have taken place in between the complainant and the respondent cannot be ruled out. The complainant may have sustained those injuries in scuffle, but there is no specific evidence that these injuries were inflicted upon her person by the respondent. She did not mention the abuses uttered by the respondent at the time of occurrence or the threat given to her by the respondent. Therefore, her allegations remained general in nature and they have not been substantiated by her statement. 6. The learned trial Court had not relied upon the solitary statement of the complainant, not corroborated by any other witness and therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt cannot - 4 - be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 7. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. June 18, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge