IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.323 of 2002. Date of decision: 2nd January, 2009. State of H.P. .. ..Appellant Versus Ran Singh . . ..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Appellant: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. For the respondent: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This Appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class(1), Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. dated 3.1.2002 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 IPC. The admitted facts are that the complainant Baldev Singh and the accused Ran Singh are real brothers. They live in houses adjoining each other. According to the complainant on 2.1.2001 the accused was playing his tape-recorder at a very high volume. Since exams of the complainant’s son were taking place he asked the accused to lower the volume of the tape- recorder. Thereafter, the complainant called Jagroop, Bishan Dass and Koko Devi to the spot. These persons persuaded both the parties to settle the matter. …2… However, suddenly the accused picked up an iron rod and gave a blow with the iron rod on the head of the complainant. He also gave a blow of a stick on the head of the son of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant and his son Amit went to the Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala for medical treatment. Police was informed from the hospital and on the basis of Rapat Ext.PW-5/A the police came to the Zonal Hospital and recorded the statement of the complainant Ext.PW-2/A under Section 154 Cr.P.C. On the basis of this complaint, FIR Ext.PW-5/C was recorded. Thereafter, investigation was done. After completion of the investigation the challan was filed in Court and the accused sent up for trial. He has been acquitted vide the impugned judgment. Hence, the appeal by the State. The complainant appeared in the witness box as PW-2. His son Amit was not examined on the ground that his statement is repetitive. The wife of the complainant was examined as PW-3. In Court the complainant has given a totally different version. According to him, after he requested his brother to lower the volume of the tape-recorder the accused ran to the house of Bishan Dass in the Village and brought the son of Bishan Dass with him. He states that house of Bishan Dass is 2 ½ furlongs from his house. At that time the complainant was sitting inside his own house. Then Bishan Dass and the accused called him outside his house. When he came out the son of Bishan Dass caught …3… hold of the complainant and the accused gave him a blow with the rod. He became unconscious. According to him the accused and the son of Bishan Dass also gave blows with a danda to his son. This version is totally contrary to the version in the complaint. It is apparent that Bishan Dass, Jagroop and Koko Devi as per the original complaint were the independent witnesses. Later in the statement in Court it is alleged that the son of Bishan Dass was one of the main assailants. The complainant has been confronted with his statement Ext.PW-2/A wherein the version given is totally different from the version given in Court. He has denied that portion of the statement in which it is alleged that he has called Jagroop, Bishan Dass and Koko Devi. He has also denied that portion of the statement where it is mentioned that these persons tried to get the matter settled. The prosecution for reasons best known to it did not examine the other injured person i.e. Amit Kumar. According to the complainant he had become unconscious as soon as he was hit by the iron rod. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have examined the other injured person also. The other independent witnesses were also not examined. It is obvious that there are various improvements in the case of the complainant. Keeping in view the fact that they are real brothers and relations between them are strained, the accused cannot be …4… convicted on the sole statement of the complainant which is full of embellishments and improvements. The learned trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. I find no reason to interfere with the said judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. 2nd January, 2009. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge