Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.363 of 2003. Dated of Decision: August 18, 2010. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Pawan Kumar. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant : Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. Surinder Singh,J (oral) : Respondent was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 325, 451, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, his acquittal has been challenged by the State in this appeal. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. In short, the prosecution case can be stated thus. Kartar Singh mortgaged his land with Bishan Dass complainant, over a portion whereof, respondent was having its possession which was having mango trees. On the previous day of the alleged incident i.e. on 5.6.1999, Saroj Kumari, daughter-in-law of the complainant had - 2 - gone to pluck the fruits from the mangos trees standing on the mortgaged land, which was allegedly in the possession of the respondent. The mother of respondent Smt. Rattani Devi is alleged to have abused her and a quarrel took place between them. The aforesaid incident was brought to the notice of the complainant. He further informed it to the Up-Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. The Pradhan demanded a written complaint for taking appropriate action, which could be taken up on 7.6.1999. 4. As per complainant, on 6.6.1999, around 9.30 p.m. when he was taking rest on his cot and other members were watching television, respondent came there, abused and threatened him with dire consequences. He also asked as to why his daughter-in- law went to pluck the mangoes from the land falling in his possession. On this, complainant warned the respondent not to use abusive language. On this, the respondent got infuriated and he picked up a stone and hit him on the right knee. It caused bleeding injuries. On this complainant raised alarm. Saroj Kumari and Minta were attracted by the cries. In the meantime, Sat Pal, Up- Pradhan also reached there. Taking notice of them, respondent fled away. The injured was hospitalized. His injury was x-rayed and medical treatment was also given - 3 - to him. Report to the police was lodged. Doctor issued medico legal certificate declaring the injury to be grievous in nature. 5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and on the completion of challan, it was presented in the court for the trial of the respondent under the aforesaid sections. At the end of trial, respondent was acquitted, on the grounds that in the complaint as also PW2, he is stated to have sustained injuries on his right leg, pelting stones by the respondent, but the medico legal certificate as well as the testimony of PW1 Dr. Umesh Dhiman, the injury sustained to the complainant was on the left leg. 6. During the examination in the court, the doctor also could not co-relate the sky-grams with the complainant for want of identification. Therefore, in view of this, the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out also for the reason that there is material contradiction in the statements of both the witnesses aforesaid with respect to causing of the injury, as the complainant stated that he had sustained injury on the right leg, but doctor stated that it was on the left leg. Further, the doctor also stated that the injury on the left leg regarding which he issued medico legal certificate could be caused due to fall. - 4 - 7. PW6 Smt. Saroj Devi, is not an eye witness. She simply stated that she was attracted by the cries and went to the spot. Her father-in-law disclosed that respondent had fractured his right leg, whereas as already stated above, according to the doctor, injury was on the left leg. 8. Further, the Investigating Officer PW8 HC Swaroop Chand admitted in his cross-examination that he also noticed stones lying in the house of the respondent. He noticed that the windows and doors of the house of respondent were also damaged, which means that the real story of the incident had been suppressed by the complainant and no independent witness from the vicinity though available has been examined to lend strength to the prosecution case. The Investigating Officer has also admitted that there are 3-4 houses in the vicinity, but he did not enquire anything from them about the alleged incident. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, in my opinion, the prosecution was not able to prove the case against the respondent beyond a reasonable doubt and the acquittal of the respondent is well founded. As such, appeal merits dismissal, which is accordingly dismissed. - 5 - The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. August 18, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.