IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.P (M) No. 238/2010 Date of decision: 27. 4. 2010 State of H.P. …..Petitioner Versus Raj Kumari ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the petitioner: Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General For the respondent : None. Surinder Singh (Oral) Heard. 1. Record of the learned trial Court perused. 2. State has called in question the judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned trial Court in Police Challan No. 26-II/2004, RBT No. 229-II/2004 decided on 16.10.2009. 3. Precisely, prosecution case is that on 27.1.2004 at about 8/8.30 p.m. complainant Milap Chand, on his return to his home, noticed that his father was being beaten up by the respondents. When he tried to rescue him, he was given danda blow on his head and iron blow on the wrist of right hand, by Dharma Singh. On raising alarm, his mother 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? - 2 - and brother PW9 Subhash Chand came to the spot and saved his father. 4. Matter was reported to the police and complainant was medically examined. He sustained fracture on his hand as such FIR under Section 325, 323 Indian Penal Code was registered. 5. Police investigated the case, recorded the statement of the witnesses, prepared the site plan and took into possession the danda as well as the iron rod. 6. After completing the investigation, challan was presented in the court for the trial of the respondents. 7. Learned trial Court after full-fledged trial acquitted the respondents on the ground that there were material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, who are close relatives and also the fact that the respondents had also lodged the report Ext. DA with respect to the same incident on which no action was taken. Therefore, in view of these facts, learned trial Court failed to find out as to who were the aggressors, as such benefit of doubt was extended to the respondents, thus acquitted. 8. On examination of the record, I find that the respondents had also sustained injuries in the same incident and it has also come in the evidence that the dispute was over a path on which both the parties indulged in some bickering, which resulted into scuffle. The respondents had also reported the matter at 12.30 a.m. whereas the complainant party had reported the matter at 11.55 p.m. and reports of both the parties were recorded in the - 3 - Rojnamcha. The complainant party as also the respondents were medically examined. Both the parties had sustained injuries. The injuries on the person of the respondents were not explained. Not even stated in the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When the Investigating Officer was examined in the court, he also did not say anything about the injuries sustained by the respondents although registration of report is admitted in cross-examination. 9. Investigation of the case was lopsided. It is not understood why the real controversy in the case was suppressed. Therefore, in these circumstances, from the version of the defence and the independent witnesses, it was rightly observed by the learned trial Court that there was difference in the progression of events which creates doubt. Therefore, the leave to appeal is not granted. Hence the application is dismissed. April 27, 2010 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge