IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Criminal Appeal No.300 of 2002 Date of decision: 31.12.2008 State of H.P …Petitioner Vs Karam Singh ….Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner:/State. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan,Advocate. ________________________________________________________ Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral): This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16th October,2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra district Kangra whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 323,325,456 and 506 IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 20th August,1990 a written complaint Ext. PW3/A, signed by complainant Krishan Chand, was made to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dehra. In this complaint it was alleged that on 30.7.1990 at about 9.30 p.m., complainant was watching television inside his room along with his mother and sister-in-law ( wife of brother Harish Chand ). The accused pushed open the door and entered the room with a ‘danda’. The accused was very angry and he lifted the danda and asked the complainant when the complainant 1 Whether the reports of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?. Yes. had seen the wife of the accused roaming with the son of Punjab Singh . The accused allegedly threatened to kill the complainant and gave a blow of the danda on the head of the complainant. Blood came out and the clothes of the complainant and bedding etc. became blood stained. It is further alleged that the accused also hit the mother and thereafter, the uncle of the complainant forced the accused out of the room. It is alleged that on the next date, the complainant’s mother had lodged the report with the police but no action was taken. Since no action had been taken he was forced to lodge the written complaint. 3. On the basis of this complaint FIR Ext.PW7/A was lodged and investigation was conducted. After investigation the challan was filed in the court. Accused was summoned. Thereafter accused appeared in the court and pleaded not guilty. He has been acquitted after trial. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Complainant Krishan Lal appeared in the Court as PW3. Here the version given by him is totally different. According to him, the accused pushed open the door and told the complainant that his (the complainant’s) wife is roaming around with a driver and then he gave a blow of the danda on the head of the complainant. The version given in the written complaint and the statement in court is totally different. Whereas in the written complaint it was alleged that the accused was angry because the complainant had allegedly levelled allegations that the wife of the accused was having an affair with the son of Punjab Singh, in the court the story given is totally different. The incident allegedly took place on 30.7.1990 and the complaint was made on 20.8.1990, about three weeks after the incident took place. The explanation is that the complainant’s mother had made a complaint to the police which had been duly recorded in the daily diary . Unfortunately, this report has not been proved on record. The same, has no doubt, been marked as mark ’A’ but it has not been proved on record by the person who recorded the same. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on this report. 5. Even if this report is taken into consideration a perusal of this report gives a third version to the incidence. In the written complaint and in court it is alleged that the accused beaten the complaint and his mother inside the room whereas there is no such allegations in the report mark ’A’. No reason for the fight is given in the report. 6. The complaint Ext.PW3/A is purported to be prepared on 12.8.1990. According to the complainant the same was scribed by his brother Harish. . The brother has not been examined in court and there is no explanation as to why this complaint which bears the date 12.8.1990 was not filed before the Deputy Superintendent of Police till 20.8.1990. Therefore, there is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. 7. According to the complainant, the main injury which he suffered was on his head which was caused by the lathi blow given by the accused. PW10 Dr. C.S. Rathore has clearly stated that the injury on the head is not possible with the ‘lathi’ but could be caused by slapping and fist blows. The medical evidence also belies the story of the complainant. 8. From the evidence it is apparent that the relations between complainant party on the one hand and the accused on the other hand were not cordial even before the incident had taken place. According to the complainant and the other family members who have been examined as witnesses, on the day following the occurrence the Pradhan of the Panchayat and other Members of Panchayat were called to the spot and they had accompanied the complainant’s mother to the police station. However, neither any such persons have been examined in court nor they have been associated during the investigation. Even the Investigating Officer has not been examined in the present case. 9. Keeping in view the delay in lodging the complainant, the inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the inconsistent stand of the complaint himself and the various lapses in the investigation the trial court rightly acquitted the accused. This judgment calls for no interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, if any furnished are ordered to be dis-charged. December 31st , 2008 ( Deepak Gupta), J. (Rita).