IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.239 of 2001 Date of Decision : 19.3.2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus: Gopal …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A. G. with Ms.. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. A. G. For the respondent : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J (Oral). The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 6.1.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-II, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in Criminal Case No. R.B.T.76-II/2K, titled as State of H.P. vs. Gopal, acquitting the accused of the charged offence. As per the case of the prosecution, in the evening of 15.2.2000 at about 6.15 p.m., complainant Joginder Singh was parking his vehicle (Van) HP-02-2606 at the Taxi Stand, Yol, District Kangra, H.P. when the accused Gopal Singh parked his vehicle (taxi) No. HP01-1296 behind the complainant’s Van due to which the Taxi being driven by the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 accused hit the complainant’s Van. The accused got down out from his Taxi and dragged him out of the Van by catching his neck and started beating him. The accused also threatened the complainant of dire consequences. The complainant was, however, rescued by S/Shri Raju and Ravi Mahajan, who were also present at the site. The matter was reported to the police on the basis of which Rapat No. 14, dated 15.2.2000 was recorded. The F.I.R. (Ext.PW-7/E) under Sections 325 & 506 IPC was registered with Police Station, Dharamshala. The accused was also got medically examined and his M.L.C. (Ext.PW-8/A) was taken by the police. With the completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the court for trial and the accused was charged for the offences under Sections 325 & 506 IPC, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. The trial Court acquitted the accused of the charged offences on the ground that in the absence of any corroboration, the version of the complainant alone could not be relied upon as the spot witnesses who were examined had not supported the prosecution case. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Dr. K. S. Katoch (PW-8) and Dr. R. K. Mahajan (PW-1) examined the complainant Joginder Singh (PW-2) and proved the X-Ray report Ext.PW-1/A, X-Ray film Ext.PW-1/B and M.L.C. Ext.PW-8/A. 3 From the statements of these witnesses, it is clear that the complainant did receive grievous injury. However, PW-8 has opined that the grievous injury could be caused only with a blunt weapon. As per the version of Shri Kuldeep Singh (PW-5), he recorded the Rapat No. 14 Ext. PW-5/A and SHO Jagdish Chand (PW-6) presented the challan in the Court for trial. Shri Surinder Kumar (PW-7) recorded the FIR Ext.PW-7/E and prepared the spot map Ext.PW-7/A and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. These witnesses have proved the investigation of the case. In order to ascertain the culpability of the accused in the commission of the charged offences, the statements of the remaining witnesses, namely, Joginder Singh (PW-2), Saligram (PW-3) and Raj Kumar (PW-4) needs to be examined. In order to constitute the charged offences, it is essentially required to be proved that the complainant had the intention to voluntarily cause grievous hurt and that the accused had criminally intimidated the complainant. PW-4 has categorically stated that the police had inquired from him as to whether he had witnessed the occurrence of any quarrel to which he had replied in the negative. He was declared hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution at all. The version of PW-3 is also to the said effect and even he was declared hostile. Both the witnesses have stated that no quarrel took place in their presence. Therefore, their testimony is of no relevance to the prosecution. As per the version of PW-2, it was he who had hit the vehicle being driven by the accused. Importantly, there is no whisper at all with regard to any threats meted out by the accused to the 4 complainant. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant had been criminally intimidated by the accused persons. Thus, the prosecution story is rendered doubtful and untrue. The truth has been deposed by the complainant that he had hit the vehicle of the accused which is contrary to the prosecution story. Therefore, PW-2 cannot be believed to be completely reliable and his testimony cannot be relied upon for the purpose of convicting the accused. Further, the prosecution story is also belied by themselves. It is the case of the prosecution that at the place and time of occurrence of the incident, two persons Ravi Mahajan and Raj Kumar were present. Shri Ravi Mahajan has not been associated by the police nor examined by the prosecution for unexplainable reasons. It is a matter of record that the incident took place in the evening at a busy market place. Why no other independent witness was associated has not been explained and such of those witnesses who were associated have categorically stated that they had told the police that they have not witnessed the occurrence of the incident. It is a matter of fact that there is no other material on record to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the court below, who has considered the material in its entirety. I see no perversity in the same. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds are discharged. March 19, 2008. (Sanjay Karol), (rana) Judge.