IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 416 of 2000 Decided on: 22.11.2010 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. ..…Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P. S. Daulta, Advocate. Sanjay Karol,J. (Oral) For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 21.8.1998, accused were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 30.3.2000, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, in Sessions Trial No. 1-NL/7 of 1999 titled as State of H.P. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Others, accused stand acquitted of the charged offence. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20th of August, 1998, at about 12.00 noon, complainant Manohar Lal stopped Shri Nanku, resident of Ward No. 2, Nalagarh from grazing his cattle in the plantation area of the Government Forest. Complainant had asked Nanku to take away his cattle and when he did not do so, in the discharge of his duties, 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 complainant drove away the cattle out of the plantation area. On 21st of August, 1998, at about 9.30 A.M. complainant was on his way to the Range Office, Nalagarh to bring the barbed wire. The accused, who are sons of Nanku followed him up to the Range Office. Near the Range Office accused started giving beating to the complainant with fist blows and kicks. They also slapped him. Complainant suffered injuries on his lips, teeth and other parts of his body. The incident was witnessed by Shri Ram Dayal and Shri Taru, who rescued the complainant from the clutches of the accused. Complainant got the matter reported to the police and FIR No. 149, (Ext.PW1/A) dated 21.8.1998 was registered with Police Station, Nalagarh, under Sections 353, 332, 333 IPC. Police commenced investigation and complainant was got medically examined through Dr. C.L. Bhardwaj (PW-6), Dr. Punam Jain (PW-3) and report (Ext.PW6/A) was obtained by the police. With the completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. The accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 353, 332 and 333 IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses and the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were also recorded in which they took the defence of false implication. 5. The Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offences, hence the present appeal. 6. At the threshold, we may point out that independent witness namely, Shri Taru (PW-5) has not supported the 3 prosecution case at all. The other independent witness Shri Ram Dayal was not examined by the prosecution. PW-5 clarifies that he had not seen the occurrence at all. This witness stands declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, yet from his statement nothing fruitful could come out which would show the complicity of the accused to the charged offences. 7. Dr. Poonam Jain, Dental Specialist (PW-3) and Dr. C.L. Bhardwaj (PW-6) have proved the injuries sustained by the complainant. However, even from their version it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to link the accused to the charged offences. It is merely a circumstance in that direction. According to Dr. Bhardwaj, injuries could have been caused by fall and according to Dr. Poonam Jain, she did not carry out the X-ray and it was also not done in her presence. This also renders the version to be doubtful. None has been examined to link the medical record of dental injury and Medical examination to be that of the complainant. 8. In our view, it would be totally unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of the complainant to hold the accused guilty of the charged offences. Importantly, complainant (PW-1) admits that no complaint with regard to the incident which had taken place on 20.8.1998 was lodged by him. He also admits that he was not working or deputed as a Guard to protect the forest. He only worked as a labourer. He does not know as to whether the complaint was made in writing or not. He also states that the FIR was registered at the instance of the Range 4 Officer. Police has not examined the Range Officer for corroboration. 9. The other witnesses namely, Shyam Sunder (PW-2), Shankar Lal (PW-4) and Bal Raj Kumar (PW-7) are not the witnesses to the occurrence of the incident. Thus, from the prosecution evidence it could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the charged offences. 10. The accused had 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 vs. 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. (R.B. Misra), Judge. November 22, 2010 (Sanjay Karol), Judge. (vs)