1 HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.671 of 2000 Decided on September, 30 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Satpal & ors ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr.R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. AG For the Respondents: Mr. Bhim Raj, Amicus Curiae R.B.Misra, Judge (Oral) The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after the leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to judgment dated 1.3.1999 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, District Kangra, HP, thereby acquitting the respondents/accused for the offences under Sections 323,324 and 326 of IPC. 2. Mr. Bhim Raj, Advocate is requested to assist this Court as Amicus Curiae. He has agreed for the same. 3. The prosecution case is that on 15.8.1994, at about 10.45 PM, Satpal, complainant was standing outside his house, Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? 2 along with his wife Rekha Devi, the accused came there and started hurling abuses in filthy language and when the complainant requested not to use such language, the accused Satpal, who was having Kassi, inflicted a blow on the hand of complainant and other accused started pelting stones causing injuries to the complainant. The matter was reported to the police and the complainant-injured was given medical treatment. After investigation, accused/respondents were charged for the aforesaid offences. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 7 prosecution witnesses, whereas, through their statements under Section 313 Cr.PC accused/respondents had denied the prosecution case. 4. On appraisal of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we notice that in FIR, Satpal, complainant, has mentioned that while he, along with Ashok Kumar, was standing outside the house, the accused Satpal came there and inflicted a blow with a weapon known as Kassi on his hand and the other accused persons pelted stones. Nothing is mentioned in the FIR that his wife Rekha was also standing with them when the accused came there. According to the complainant, Ashok Kumar was the only eye witness who was present on the spot at the time of occurrence. However, the prosecution has not examined Ashok Kumar as witness, for the reasons best known to it. As per the statement of the complainant when the accused came, he was standing outside, whereas PW-2 Rekha Devi has stated that when the accused came, the complainant Satpal was sleeping. PW-3 3 Godavari Devi has stated that the accused came in the truck, whereas, none of the other witnesses has stated that the accused came in a truck. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are creating doubt about the manner of occurrence of the assault and injury also. 5. In view of the contradictions and inconsistencies, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt to the accused successfully. Therefore, we find no scope for interference in the impugned judgment of the learned Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate. The criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. 8. The bail bonds, furnished by the accused/ respondents, are discharged. ( R.B.Misra ), J. 30th September, 2010 ( V.K.Sharma ), J. (sl)