IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2000 Judgment reserved on : 4.8.2010 Date of Decision : September 30 , 2010 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Piar Singh Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General for the appellant-State. For the respondent : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate, for the respondent. Sanjay Karol, J. For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 27.10.1997, accused was put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 15.6.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bilaspur, H.P. in case No. 118/2 of 1998, titled as State versus Piar Singh, accused stands acquitted of the charged offences. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.10.1997 complainant Sh. Pritam Singh (PW-1) lodged a report with police Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 station Sadar Bilaspur that he resids with his mother and attends to her land in village Kohina. His maternal uncles Sh. Balak Ram and Sh. Sukhu Ram from the village are jealous of this fact. On 27.10.1997 at about 2.00 p.m. on his way back home he saw Sarwan Singh and accused Piar Singh both sons of Sh. Balak Ram and two other persons cutting stones. The moment he crossed them they started abusing which was objected to by him. All four of them then started giving him beatings. Accused Piar Singh hit him on the forehead with a hammer and the other three namely Sukh Ram, Sarwan and Jagdev gave blows with fists and stick. He cried for help and his uncle Sh. Sohan Singh came and rescued him from the clutches of the accused person. The incident was witnessed by other persons also. 3. On the basis of the said complaint F.I.R. (Ext. PW 1/A) No. 220/97, dated 27.10.1997 was registered with Police Station, Sadar Bilaspur, H.P. under Sections 326, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. ASI Bansi Ram (PW-10) commenced the investigation. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Sh. Pritam Singh was got medically examined by Dr. C. K. Gupta (PW-6) and his MLC (Ext. PW 6/A) taken on record. Even accused had injuries on his body and as such was got medically examined by Dr. C. R. Verma (PW-9) and his MLC (Ext. PW 9/A) taken on record. The weapon of offence namely the hammer (Ext. P1) was taken into possession by the 3 police. With the completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court for trial. 5. The accused was charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case prosecution examined 10 witnesses and the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was also recorded. 7. The trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that there were material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. Their version also does not inspire confidence. Hence the present appeal. 8. It cannot be disputed that the complainant received injuries which stand proved by Dr. C. K. Gupta (PW-6) who proved MLC (Ext. PW 6/A). However according to the Doctor these injuries could be caused if a person were to fall on hard surface. 9. It is also a matter of fact that even the accused sustained injuries which fact stands proved by Dr. C.R. Verma (PW-9) who proved MLC (Ext. PW 9/A). 10. From the statement of PW-10 it is apparent that during the course of investigation it so revealed that some quarrel had taken place between the accused and the complainant. Now according to Smt. Satya Devi (PW-2) and Smt. Ajodhya Devi(PW-4) (real sister of the complainant) they had actually not witnessed the occurrence of 4 the incident. Further there are material contradictions in the statement of PW-4. 11. According to Smt. Ajodhya Devi (PW-4) she reached the spot and snatched the danda from the hand of Sarwan Singh. Now this version stands contradicted by PW-10 who during the course of investigation found nothing against Sarwan Singh. Even PW-1 does not depose this fact. According to PW-4 she did not witness the occurrence of the incident and when she reached the spot her brother was lying on the floor. She categorically states that accused Piar Singh was standing far away and she did not see Piar Singh gave any blow to the complainant. Importantly according to her, her uncle Sohan Singh (PW-5) reached the spot after ten minutes. This contradicts the version of PW-5 who in any event admits that no scuffle took place in his presence nor did he see any one giving beatings to the complainant. Hence her statement is neither trustworthy nor does it prove the prosecution case. In fact it belies the same. 12. In Court complainant has given a version which is totally different from his earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. In his statement he does not mention that the incident was witnessed by PW-2, PW-4 and one Jai Ram. In his examination-in- chief he does not even mention that accused had given him a blow with a hammer. He also does not mention that the incident was witnessed by other persons. There are improvements in his 5 statement which render the veracity of his statement to be doubtful. He admits that there is animosity between him and the accused. 13. Statement of Sh. Sohan Lal (PW-5) also does not improve the prosecution case. He contradicts himself. In examination- in-chief he states that the accused had given beatings to the complainant but in his cross examination he categorically admits that he did not see any person inflicting injuries on the complainant and came to know of this fact only when he reached at the spot. He admits that the hammer (Ext.P1) allegedly taken by the police is not the one which was shown to him in Court. 14. Now there is nothing on record to prove that the blood on the stones (Exts. P2 and P3) allegedly taken into possession vide memo (Ext. PW 5/A) was actually that of the complainant as there is no report of the chemical analyst to this effect. 15. Surprisingly in his statement in Court complainant does not mention that it was the accused who had given him blow with a hammer. According to him it was Jagdev who had pushed him as a result of which he fell down. According to him police had taken into possession danda. Now this danda has not been produced on record. 16. It appears that some quarrel took place between the complainant and the accused. Who was the aggressor and who was hurt by whom is not clear. 17. From the record it cannot be said that accused had voluntarily caused hurt to the accused with a dangerous weapon. It also cannot 6 be said that the prosecution has proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused had intentionally insulted or provoked the complainant to break public piece or commit any offence. 18. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the persons has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. September 30 , 2010 (PK)