IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 681 of 2002 Date of decision : July 29, 2009 State of HP …Petitioner Versus Parkash Chand & another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For Respondent No.1: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 8.8.2001 of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palampur, whereby respondents, who were tried for offences, under Sections 323, 325 and 506 IPC, have been acquitted. 2. A report (copy Ext.PW7/A) was lodged with the police by PW-1 Sansar Chand on 15.9.1999 that when he was returning to his house after urinating on the backside of his house, respondent Parkash Chand accompanied by his wife, both of whom were armed with dandas, came from behind and respondent Parkash Chand hit him on his head as a result of which Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… he sustained bleeding injury. He raised alarm on hearing which PW-2 Dhani Ram and some other persons came there and rescued him. Member of Gram Panchayat was called and apprised of the incident. He advised that injured be taken to the Pardhan. So, he was taken to the house of Pardhan. Next day injured went to Police Station and lodged report Ext. PW7/A. Injured was got medically examined. PW-5 Dr. Ashwani Kumar conducted the medical examination and advised x-ray of the skull of PW-1 Sansar Chand, injured. PW-6 Dr. O.P. Ramdeo, Radiologist, after examining the skiagrams, opined that there was fracture of left parietal bone. 3. Respondent denied that they had assaulted PW-1 Sansar Chand. They stated that they had been falsely implicated on account of longstanding enmity between the parties. 4. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 5. Prosecution examined only one of the alleged rescuers of PW-1 Sansar Chand, to seek corroboration to the version testified by Sansar Chand. He is Dhani …3… Ram PW-2, an uncle of Sansar Chand, injured. The statement of this witness is contradictory to that of injured Sansar Chand. According to Sansar Chand, he was given only one danda blow and that too by one of the respondents, namely Parkash Chand, but according to PW-2 Dhani Ram, repeated danda blows were given to Sansar Chand, by both the respondents. 6. Again, according to PW-1 Sansar Chand, he was hit with the danda on his head, when he was returning to his house, after urinating on the backside of his house, but PW-2 Dhani Ram says that Sansar Chand was sitting in his courtyard, when he was given beatings with dandas by both the respondents. 7. Above stated position apart, there is no evidence on record, connecting skiagrams Ext.P-II with injured Sansar Chand. The Radiographer or the person, who x-rayed the skull, was not examined by the prosecution. Folder, in which the skiagrams are available, indicates that x-raying took place on 16.9.1999. PW-5 Dr. Ashwani Kumar does not say that he had subjected PW-1 Sansar Chand to x-ray examination. He simply says that he advised x-ray of the skull of PW-1 Sansar Chand. PW-6 Dr. O.P. …4… Ramdeo says that on 8.10.1999, he scanned x-ray films Ext. P-II and gave the opinion that there was fracture of left parietal bone. He did not say that it was he who had x-rayed or under whose supervision x-ray of the skull of PW-1 Sansar Chand was conducted. PW-5 Dr. Ashwani Kumar stated that injury could have been sustained as a result of fall. 8. In view of the above stated position, there does not appear to be any ground for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. July 29, 2009 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J