IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 692 of 2000. Date of Decision: 3rd January, 2008. State of H.P. Appellant Versus Sikander and another Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr.Ashok Chaudhary, Addl. Advocate General For the respondents. Mr.Vivek Thakur and Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The present appeal arises out of judgment dated 28th March, 2000 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, H.P. in Case No. 245-1 of 1996 acquitting the accused of the charged offence. As per the case of the prosecution, complainant Rup Lal (PW-1), was running a photography shop at Kandraur, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. On 1.7.1996 at about 12 o’clock two girls entered his shop to have their photographs clicked when the accused persons entered the complainant’s shop and forced the girls to leave. When the complainant objected to the same, accused not only abused him but also threatened that they would see him in the morning of the next day. On the Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 next day i.e. 2.7.1996 at about 8 a.m. the complainant had opened his shop and was cleaning the same, accused persons in a drunken state entered the shop and physically assaulted the complainant and also damaged his property. He was rescued by his neighbour Kuldeep (PW-2). PW-1 lodged a complaint dated 2.7.1996 (Ext.PA) with SHO, Bilaspur and based on the same FIR No. 190 of 96 dated 2.7.1996 (Ext.PW-6/A), under Sections 452, 504, 440 and 323 read with Section 34, IPC was registered with Police Station Sadar. The complainant was medically examined through Dr.Dharmender Sharma (PW-3). With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. The accused were charged for an offence under Sections 452, 440, 323 read with Section 34, IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, prosecution in all has examined 7 witnesses and statements of accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. were also recorded. Appreciating the material on record, including the statements of the parties, the Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offence on the ground that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as the statement of the witnesses did not inspire confidence. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Dr.Dharmender Sharma (PW-3), Shri Devi Ram (PW-4), SHO Raghunath Singh (PW-5), HC Ram Lal (PW-6) and Madan Lal (PW- 7) have proved the fact that PW-1 was treated by the doctor for the injuries 3 sustained on his body and the investigation was carried out by the police as also the challan was presented in the Court. However, this fact by itself would not hold the accused guilty of the charged offence. In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the charged offence, statements of injured, complainant Rup Lal (PW-1) and his neighbour Kuldeep (PW-2) the spot witness, need to be examined. As per the version of PW-1 he lodged the complaint Ext.PA with Police Station. Careful scrutiny of his statement recorded in the Court and the complaint (Ext.PA) filed with the Police Station would show that there are major contradictions in the same. Whereas in Ext.PA he has stated that on 1.7.1996 at about 12 noon two girls had visited his shop to get their photographs clicked, when the accused persons pushed them out of the shop and abused and threatened him to see him on the next day, but as per his version recorded in the Court he is conspicuously silent about the same. In fact contrary to the same he has stated that incident took place on 2.7.1996 in the morning at 8 a.m. when the accused persons came to his shop in a drunken state to get their photographs clicked. Since the complainant had not cleaned the shop, the accused were asked to wait for some time when they not only abused the complainant but also threatened that they would come back at 10 or 10.30 a.m. and see him at that time. Later on the accused persons entered his shop and not only assaulted him but also damaged his property. Further he has also contradicted himself while recording his statement in the Court. Whereas in his examination-in- chief he has deposed that in the morning of 2.7.1996 at about 8 a.m. the accused persons had come to his shop, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that he opens the shop only at 9 a.m. 4 Further PW-2 has admitted in his cross-examination he had seen the accused quarrelling with the complainant only outside the shop whereas as per the version of PW-1 the incident took place in the shop itself. As per Ext.PA, only two persons accused Sikender and Chaman Lal were alleged to have committed the offence, whereas as per his version recorded in the Court he has referred to other boys also who had accompanied the accused at the time of the commission of the offence. In my view, the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2 cannot be relied upon to hold the accused persons guilty of the commission of alleged offence. Their statements stand uncorroborated. The contradictions in their statements are vital and render the prosecution story to be false and incorrect. The accused have had the advantage of having acquitted by the Court below. The Court below has correctly appreciated the facts and entire material on record while arriving at its conclusion. I see no perversity in the same and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds stand discharged. 3rd January, 2008 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge