IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 189 of 2002 Date of decision: 23.12.2008 State of H.P. …. Appellant. Vs. Bharat Kumar and ors. ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the appellant-State: Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy.Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, in Cr. Case No. 106/2 of 1997 dated 19.10.2001, whereby he has acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Complainant Kishan Lal made a complaint to the police on 24.4.1997 that at about 9.30 p.m. on the said date when he had gone to fill water from a public tap near his house his cousin Bharat Kumar and Smt. Santosh Kumari wife of Bharat Kumar abused him and thereafter his paternal uncle Nand Lal came to the spot and they started beating him up. Bharat Kumar allegedly gave a blow with a danda on his head and thereafter Raju and Santosh Kumari also came and gave him kicks and fist blows. When the complainant raised a hue and cry his sister and father came to the spot. They rescued him from the accused party. It was alleged that the sister was also beaten up by the accused persons. On the complaint being filed, both the complainant as well as his sister were got examined by the medical authorities. Investigation was done and thereafter challan was filed 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment . yes. 2 against the accused. The accused were summoned, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused have been acquitted and hence this appeal. The prosecution in support of its case examined complainant Kishan Lal and his sister Meena Kumari and his father Jai Ram. They are the main witnesses to the case. As per MLC Ext.PW-5/B Kishan Kumar had one lacerated wound on the occipital bone and one bruise on the left maxillary. Both the injuries were stated to be simple. As far as Meena Kumari is concerned, there was no injury except slight bruises on her lower lip and forehead. Both these injuries on her body were also simple. The Dr. H.C.Gupta, PW-7, has also stated that these injuries could be caused by a fall. From the entire reading of the evidence on record, it is more than amply clear that some occurrence did take place on the spot. The version of the complainant is that when he went to fill water accused Bharat Kumar immediately started abusing him. He did not give any reason as to how the fight starts. However, this reason has come out in the cross-examination of the complainant. In cross- examination he admits that he had gone to fix a water hose to the public tap and this water hose, according to him, was leading to a drum. The defence is that the accused was using this water for irrigation purposes and therefore the accused had objected to the same. The complainant and his witnesses, both in the complaint as well as during the recording of evidence in Court have tried to hide the genesis of the fight. They should have come out with truth and given the reason as to why the fight occurred. It is also clear from the cross-examination of Jai Ram, father of the complainant, that there is already litigation pending between the parties and the father had filed 3 some case praying that the accused be restrained from raising the construction of an Obra. Therefore, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be gone through with greater care and caution. From the evidence of Shri Jai Ram PW-4, it is apparent that he reached the spot after the incident had already taken place. Though he states that in his presence his son was beaten up but in cross- examination he admits that his daughter was first to reach the spot. The witness was confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where he has stated that he reached at the spot after the occurrence had taken place. It is thus clear that no reliance can be placed on his statement. PW-3 Meena Kumari has also not clearly stated that as to which injury was caused by which accused person. Even a reading of her statement clearly shows that she in fact probably reached the scene of the occurrence after the fight was over. The learned trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. This judgement calls for no interference hence the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished are ordered to be discharged. December 23, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™