IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 545/2003 Decided on: 10.5.2010 _____________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. Versus Harnam Singh and another. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondents : Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral) State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 4.6.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra in criminal case No. 273-I/97, whereby respondents charged with and tried for offences punishable, under sections 354, 323 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that PW-1 Sunita Devi made statement Ex.PW-1/A under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that she is house wife and mother of three kids. Her husband Shyam Lal was working as a teacher in Government High School, Dhar Dhangar. On 8.4.1997 around 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 5.30 P.M., she went to shop to purchase vegetables. Respondent Harnam Singh was sitting near the shop. She enquired about tomatoes. In the meanwhile, respondent Harnam Singh came there and caught hold of her salwar. She rescued herself. Respondent left her salwar and caught her breast and started pressing them. This incident was witnessed by son of Dhani Ram, who was selling the vegetables, S/Sh. Sanjay and Narinder Kumar. She went back and narrated this incident to her husband. When Shyam Lal picked up the phone to call the police, respondent Harnam Singh alongwith his other family members came there. Janaki Devi, respondent No.2, mother of respondent No.1 did not allow Shyam Lal to make a phone call. Thereafter respondent No.2 pushed her (complainant) and her mother-in-law (Satya Devi), who fell down and sustained injury on her left arm. Satya Devi was rescued by Shyam Lal and Harbans Lal. The respondents left out after sometime. FIR was registered on the basis of Ex.PW-9/A and was assigned FIR No. 49/97 Ex.PY. Satya Devi was medically examined. The matter was investigated. The challan was put up in the Court against the respondents after completing all the codal formalities under section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses in all to prove its case against the respondents. Respondents were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defence of the respondents is of simpliciter denial. They 3 pleaded that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. The trial court acquitted the respondents. 4. Mr. Anil Jaswal, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondents. 5. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate has supported the judgment of the learned trial court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 7. PW-1 Sunita Devi has stated that her husband is posted as a teacher in Dhar Dhangar, School. She went to buy vegetables on 9.3.1998 at 6.00 P.M. Respondent No.1 was sitting there on a heap of stones and she enquired the rate of ‘Ghia’. Respondent No.1, who was in inebriated condition, started calling her names. She asked the respondent Harnam Singh to refrain himself. Respondent Harnam Singh got up and caught hold of her shirt and touched her breast. She pushed him and rushed to her house. The family members of respondent Harnam Singh followed her. According to her, 13-14 persons started beating them (complainant etc.) in their house. Since she did not support the prosecution case in toto, she was declared hostile. In her cross-examination, she admitted the prosecution story. She also admitted that she made statement Ex.PW-1/A. She also admitted that another case has been registered by her against the respondents and their family members. PW-2 Satya Devi is the mother-in-law of complainant. She stated that her daughter-in-law 4 had gone to market to purchase vegetables. When she came back, her face was grim. The moment she started narrating the incident, respondent No.2 Janaki Devi came in the courtyard. She caught hold of complainant from her hair. She tried to rescue the complainant. She was pushed by respondent Janaki Devi. Respondent Janaki Devi caught hold of her hair also. She sent the complainant etc. inside the room. PW-2 Satya Devi also went in the room. All the miscreants then entered the room. The moment Shyam Lal picked up the receiver to make a phone call, respondent Janaki Devi snatched the receiver from him and slapped him. According to her, respondent No.2 even snapped the telephone line. PW-2 was sitting on a chair. Respondent Janaki Devi kicked her, as a result of which she fell down. She suffered injury on her left arm. Respondent Janaki Devi left their house around 7.00/8.00 P.M. She was medically examined vide Medico Legal Certificate Ex.PW-2/A. She admitted in her cross- examination that respondents have purchased the land adjoining to their land. She admitted that land dispute was pending between them and uncle (Taya) of respondent No.1. PW-3 Harbans Lal stated that on the relevant day, he came to know that a fight was taking place in the house of complainant. Respondent Janaki Devi was slapping and kicking complainant Sunita Devi. The family members of the respondents had encircled Shyam Lal. Respondent Janaki Devi was not permitting Shyam Lal to make any telephone call. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had contested the Panchayat Election against the cousin of 5 respondent Harnam Singh. He admitted that he lost the election. PW-4 Satya Devi is wife of PW-3 Harbans Lal. She deposed that Satya Devi became consciousness because of beatings given by the respondents. PW-5 Shyam Lal, husband of the complainant, stated that respondent Janaki Devi slapped him and other family members were beaten with fists and kicks. He admitted in cross- examination that land dispute was pending between them and Kura Ram, uncle of respondent Harnam Singh. According to him, the fight continued for 15-20 minutes. PW-6 Ashok Kumar has not supported the prosecution case. PW-1 Sunita Devi, PW-2 Satya Devi and PW-5 Shyam Lal are closely related. It is settled law that statements of the witnesses, who are closely related to each other, can be taken into consideration, however, this has to be done with proper care and caution. PW-3 and PW-4 are interested witnesses. PW-3 Harbans Lal had lost election against the cousin of respondent Harnam Singh. Medico Legal Certificate Ex.PW-2/A has not been proved by the prosecution in accordance with law. The doctor, who medically examined PW-2 Satya Devi, has not been produced as witness. The name of Satya Devi (PW- 4) did not find mention in the FIR Ex. PY. PW-6 Ashok Kumar and PW-7 Sanjay Kumar were the only independent witnesses, however, they have not supported the case of the prosecution. There are material contradictions in the statements of PW-1, PW- 2 and PW-5. 8. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, the view taken by the learned trial court is supportable by the evidence and there is 6 no perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents/accused stand discharged. (Rajiv Sharma), J. 10.5. 2010 *awasthi*