IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.360 of 2004. Decided on: June 14, 2011. ___________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …. Appellant. Versus Madan Lal and another . ….. Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Bhanu Partap Singh Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Navlesh Verma, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral): The State has challenged the judgment of acquittal of the respondents, passed in Criminal Case No.63-II/2002 decided on 17.1.2004, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 3. In short the prosecution story can be stated thus. Complainant Smt. Ram Piari is the mother of respondent No.1 Madan Lal and mother-in-law of respondent No.2 Kusum Lata. It is alleged that on 11.5.2002 around 6 a.m, when she was collecting cow-dung in her courtyard, she asked her son- respondent No.1 to switch off the tape-recorder. On this, respondent Kusum Lata objected to it and got annoyed. She is alleged to have hit her with wooden plank on the head. Immediately thereafter, respondent Madan Lal came there and restrained the complainant from proceeding to her house. He also gave a fist blow to her and twisted the ring finger of her right hand. Complainant reported the matter to the police, which culminated into FIR Ext.PW4/A. 4. Police got the complainant medically examined. She was found having as much as four injuries on her person as mentioned in the Medico Legal Certificate Ext.PW1/A. The injury on the ring finger was got x-rayed. As per the opinion of the doctor (PW2), there was a fracture of the proximal phalanx. - 3 - 5. Police prepared the site plan of the place of alleged incident and after recording the statements of the witnesses, challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondents. Accordingly, they were charge-sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the end of trial, both the respondents were acquitted, on the grounds that the parties were already locked into litigation for the last so many years and they were residing separately from each other. Further there was no independent witness though available to corroborate the version of the complainant and the statement of complainant does not inspire confidence as she materially deviated from the FIR. 6. PW4, complainant stated that when she told the respondent Madan Lal to switch off the tape- recorder, which was being run on a high pitch, her daughter-in-law Kusum Lata objected to it and dealt a blow of wooden plank on her head. Thereafter, respondent Madan Lal restrained her from proceedings towards her house and both of them fisticuffed her and gave kick blows. She - 4 - further stated that respondent Madan Lal caught hold of her from the hair and because of the blow given by Madan Lal, she suffered injury on the ring finger of the right hand, but this fact is certainly an improvement of the FIR, which she initially lodged on the same day and there is no mention about Madan Lal having caught her from the hair and also that both the respondents had given fist and kick blows. The presence of her husband having witnessed the alleged incident does not appear in the FIR, whereas he has been cited as an eye witness to the incident by the prosecution. It is also established on record that the respondents are living separately from their parents and they are in litigation with each other for the last about six years. One matter is stated to be pending in the Gram Panchayat. It has also come in the prosecution evidence that a compromise Ext.D1 was also effected inter-se the respondents and their parents. Further a dispute regarding the property is also going on between them. Even the complainant and her husband are also facing a criminal case for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and - 5 - 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of respondent No.2. Further there is mention in the FIR about having witnessed the said incident by her neighbours who are co-villagers, but none of them have been examined to corroborate the story as propounded by the complainant against the respondents. No cogent reason has been explained for not examining any of the witnesses of the vicinity, who had gathered at the time of said incident on the spot. 7. PW2 Dr. M.S. Dogra, had given the opinion with respect to the fracture of the proximal phalanx of the ring finger of the complainant, but there is no material on record what was the basis of giving such an opinion by him. Even the sky-gram of the effected finger has not placed and proved on record. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt, as such, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court - 6 - cannot be interfered with. The instant appeal sans merit, hence dismissed. 9. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of the case. 10. Send down the records. June 14, 2011. (Surinder Singh), (Pds) Judge.