Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.509 of 2001. Dated of Decision: July 09, 2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Naresh Kumar and another. ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. Surinder Singh,J (oral) : Heard and gone through the record. The State has assailed the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court in Criminal Case No.352/1 of 1996, under Sections 325 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 25.7.1996 at about 8.30 p.m., the respondents are alleged to have caused the grievous hurt, i.e. fracture of distal end of 5th metacarpal of right hand of Dalip Singh. On the basis of his statement, FIR Ex.PW5/A was registered. He was medically examined by PW10 Dr. T.S. Chandel. Police took into possession MLC Ex.PW10/A alongwith sky-gram. After completing the investigation of the case, challan was presented in the court for trial against the respondents. The respondents were charge-sheeted. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and at the end of the trial, the respondents were acquitted for the offences aforesaid, on the ground that there are glaring - 2 - contradictions in the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, which make the case of the prosecution quite doubtful, hence by giving the benefit of doubt, the respondents were acquitted and their acquittal has been challenged in this appeal. Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer for the state has vehemently argued that there are minor contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, which are bound to occur owing to time, but otherwise, the case of the prosecution inspires confidence. As a matter of fact, the story which Dalip Singh gave initially in the form of his statement on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW5/A was registered is juxta opposite, which he narrated as PW1, in the court. In the FIR he stated that when he was returning from his shop after closing it around 8.30 p.m., he saw Rup Singh, Sunehro Devi, Simro Devi, Rita Devi and respondent Bhumi Raj on the backside of the house of Nain Singh. On reaching there, he asked them the reasons for indulging in arguments. On this Prem Singh, Bishni Devi, Geeta Devi and mother of Nain Singh informed him that the ladies from the family of Rup Singh had cut and removed the grass from their land. Respondent Bhumi Raj was sitting nearby. He called respondent Naresh Kumar. Bhumi Raj gave a lathi blow on his back. Naresh Kumar wielded darat but he tried to escape, but he sustained a bleeding injury on his little finger. Prem Singh, Bishni Devi, Geeta Devi and Madho Ram, who were present there intervened and rescued him. While leaving the place, the respondents threatened him with dire consequences. As PW1 Dalip Singh has totally deviated from his earlier version and totally contradicted it. According to him, his uncle Rup Singh and Maru Ram had a dispute between them regarding the cowshed and were quarreling with each other. Simro Devi and Rita Devi were beating Gita Devi. When he tried to save Gita Devi from their clutches, Bhumi Raj, who was present there called Naresh Kumar, who came with stick and Darat. - 3 - He threw the stick towards Bhumi Raj and Bhumi Raj gave a blow with that stick on his hand and Naresh Kumar with the reverse side of the darat had tried to hit him, but he escaped. His aunt Ishwari Devi caught hold of Naresh Kumar and snatched darat from him. Prem Singh and Bishni Devi took away the stick from Bhumi Raj. During the investigation of the case, no such story had surfaced. Simro Devi and Rita Devi were not arrayed as accused persons. He has admitted in the cross-examination that a case with respect to the alleged incident was also registered by the respondents against him, but the matter between Gita Devi, Simro Devi and Rita Devi was compromised, therefore, no challan was presented against them. He further admitted that Bhumi Raj gave him many injuries with the lathi, but as per the medical report, there is only one injury, that too on his left hand, as stated in the Medico Legal Certificate even there was no injury on his back. His witness Prem Singh (PW2) has given another story. According to him, Rita Devi and Simro Devi were quarreling with each other and not that Simro Devi and Rita Devi were giving beatings to Gita Devi, as stated by the complainant. He also stated that when Bhumi Raj had called Naresh Kumar. He came with a stick and darat, whereas this fact is not so mentioned in the FIR. He further stated that by the blow of stick, complainant sustained injuries on his left arm. He also stated that when Naresh Kumar was likely to hit the complainant with a darat, he was stopped by his aunt. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was not in speaking terms with the family of the respondents. Admittedly, there was also civil litigation pending inter-se the parties. PW4 Smt. Gita Devi, did not know who had hit whom. PW6 Maru Ram has turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW9 SI Ranjha Ram, Investigating Officer has admitted in his cross- examination that a cross case was also instituted by the respondents with respect to the same incident, which was with him, but later assigned to - 4 - some other investigating officer. What had happened to that is not divulged by him. Thus, in the totality of circumstances, when there are material contradictions and the complainant has materially deviated from the main pivotal of the case, no importance can be attached to his statement. The other witnesses have sharply contradicted the prosecution case on the material points. On reappraising the evidence on record, I find that the learned trial court has rightly picked up and appreciated the contradictions on record and gave the benefit of doubt to the respondents. I do not find anything worth interference in this appeal, accordingly the acquittal of the respondents is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by each of them at any stage during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. July 09, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.