IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.937 of 2007 and Cr. Appeal No. 500 of 2007 Date of decision: 1.5.2008 State of H.P. …….Petitioner Vs. Naresh Kumar & Anr. …. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge.(Oral) This petition has been filed for seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 5.9.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.III, Hamirpur in police challan No.85-II-2001,RBT No.3-II-2004, acquitting the respondents for having committed offence punishable under Sections 451, 325, 323 , 504 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that PW-6 Jagdish Chand complainant reported the matter at Police Station Bhoranj on 7.11.2001 that he was physically challenged and had been working as a manual labourer. At about 7.00 am respondents came inside Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… his house and started abusing his brother. He asked the respondents that there were guests in the house and they should not behave in such a manner. On this respondent No.2 picked up a danda and struck him with it, her son respondent No.1 also gave beatings to him. PW-9 Raj Kumar nephew, PW-8 Munshi Ram brother and PW-10 Satya Devi wife of the complainant saved him. On this FIR No.56 of 2001 dated 7.11.2001 was registered at Police Station, Bhoranj. PW-2 Dr. Lalit Kalia examined the complainant and issued MLC Ex.PW-2/A. PW-3 Dr. P.C. Verma examined X-ray of the complainant and gave report Ex.PW-3/A. On completion of the investigation challan was presented in the Court and the charge was framed against the respondents under Sections 451, 325, 504 read with section 34 IPC, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses, the respondents did not lead any evidence in defence. The learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondents on 5.9.2007 Hence the State has filed the application for leave to file appeal. 3. Heard and perused the record. PW-6 Jagdish Chand complainant has stated that accused had come to take money from his brother. He told them not to raise the demand loudly, rather speak at low pitch. The accused gave him push, his brother and sister-in-law were present on the spot. The complainant did not support the prosecution and he was declared hostile. In cross- examination conducted by the prosecution nothing special was extracted, he has stated that Ex.P-1 danda was lying in side which …3… was part of the green leaves fodder (Patrah) given by them to Buffalo. He has not stated in cross-examination that he was given beatings by respondents with danda Ex.P-1. He has generally stated that he was given beatings by danda Ex.P-1. PW-8 Munshi Ram has stated that on 7.11.2001 at about 5/6 am respondents came to his house, they had some dealing with him with respect to sale and purchase of buffalo. The respondent No.1 started shouting loudly. The complainant told them to speak at low pitch as some guests had come to their house, on this they took danda and started beating to Jagdish Chand. He has nowhere stated that who gave the danda blows. This witness has not stated that the respondents pushed the complainant. The complainant has not stated that he was given beatings by the respondents with danda Ex.P-1. PW-8 could not tell who gave danda blows. It appears that PW-8 was not on the spot and he came on the spot after the alleged incident. PW-9 Raj Kumar has given the time of occurrence at about 7 am on 11.7.2001. This is incomplete contradiction to the prosecution case, according to which alleged occurrence took place on 7.11.2001. PW-9 has given the time of occurrence 7 am whereas PW-8 has given the time of occurrence 5/6 am. PW-9 has stated that respondents started abusing from out side. This is not so stated either by PW-8 Munshi Ram or PW-6 Jagdish complainant. PW-9 has not stated that the respondents gave beatings to the complainant with danda Ex.P-1. PW-9 has not stated that complainant was saved by PW-8 Munshi Ram and his wife. PW-10 Satya Devi has stated that about two years …4… ago ‘Chimbey’ came and demanded money. In examination-in-chief she has specifically named none but in cross-examination she has stated that name of the boy is Ramesh and she does not know the name of the lady. In cross-examination she has stated that the boy caught hold the complainant and her mother gave danda blows. No other witness has stated that one accused caught hold the complainant and other gave the danda blows. PW-3 Dr. P.C. Verma after seeing X report Ex.PW-1/A has stated that injury can be caused by fall. PW-2 Dr.Lalit Kalia has stated that injuries mentioned in MLC Ex.PW-2/A are possible by fall on hard surface. In view of the evidence noticed above, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondents. Learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly appreciated the material on record. No case for grant of leave to file appeal has been made out, hence leave to appeal rejected. 4. Cr. Appeal No.500 of 2007 In view of the disposal of leave to file appeal, this appeal has become infructuous. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. May 1, 2008 (sks)