IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.149 of 2003. Date of Decision: 19th March, 2010. State of Himachal Pradesh .. Appellant. Versus Sushma Devi and others .. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral) . The respondents were tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 506 and 504 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial Court, in Criminal Case No.110-II of 1999, vide its judgment rendered on 24th April, 2002. Their acquittal is under challenge in this appeal filed by the State. In short, the prosecution case can be summed up thus. On 22nd December, 1997 at about 5.30 PM, Sumna Kumari was present in her cowshed in village Jharer, District Kangra. Respondents Ashok Kumar, Mohinder Singh and Parkash Chand of the same village started hurling abuses to her. Their wives also joined the pursuit. On seeing the temperament of the respondents, complainant Sumna Kumari ran away from the spot and went to the house of Jagdish Chand, the elder brother of her husband Roop Chand. Both were present there and she disclosed the above episode to them. Thereafter they decided to report the matter 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - to the police in Police Station, Shahpur. When all of them were proceeding towards Police Station, they heard the cries of their son PW-4 Vinesh Kumar. They reached the spot and noticed that respondents Parkash Chand, Ashok Kumar, Pawan, Desh Raj and Mohinder Singh alongwith their wives started beating the complainant. In this episode she lost her golden chain and ear rings on the spot. When her husband PW-2 Roop Chand intervened, he was also thrashed by the respondents. In the aforesaid incident the complainant sustained injuries on her leg. She cried for help. On hearing it, Karam Singh, Jagdish Chand and some other people gathered on the spot. The respondents fled away. Roop Chand was also having injuries. He was removed to the hospital. Police was informed and the statement of Sumna Kumari Ext.PW-1/A was recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of which FIR Ext.PW-10/F was registered. PW-10 Head Constable Suresh Kumar, Investigating Officer, visited the spot, prepared the site plan, iron rods, Dandas etc. were taken into possession vide separate memos, recorded the statements of the witnesses and after medical examination of Roop Chand, Vinesh Kumar and Sumna Kumari their Medico-Legal Certificates were also taken into possession. On completing the Challan, the respondents were made to face the trial. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. Prosecution led its evidence to prove the charges against the respondents, but learned trial Court disbelieved the prosecution evidence precisely on the grounds that there are material contradictions in the statements of its witnesses with respect to the incident and further that the respondents have also lodged one FIR a day earlier, i.e., on 21st December, 1997 prior to the alleged incident and another with respect to this incident on 23rd December, 1997. Accused-respondents Geeta Devi, Ashok Kumar, Mohinder Singh and Joginder Singh were also medically - 3 - examined. The injuries on the person of Joginder Singh were found grievous in nature. It was not satisfactory explained by the prosecution as to how the accused-respondents sustained grievous injuries, so there was a serious doubt regarding the manner in which the incident had taken place. Thus, the respondents were given the benefit of doubt. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and reappraised the evidence on record. I have no reason to differ with the reasoning advanced by the learned trial Court for the reasons that none of the witnesses has deposed against the criminal intimidation as alleged by the prosecution. Thus the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out from the evidence on record. Further, in so far as the other offences are concerned, much stress has been led by the prosecution on the statements of the injured witnesses one of them was Sumna Kumari complainant. No doubt she proved her statement Ext.PW-1/A recorded by the police, but she categorically admitted in her cross-examination that on 21st December, 1997, i.e. just one day before the alleged incident respondent Ashok Kumar had also lodged a case against her son Sanjay Kumar alias Sanju. She was also confronted with her statement Ext.PW-1/A wherein there was no mention about her son Vinesh Kumar calling his father when he was allegedly beaten by the respondent. Her husband PW-2 Roop Chand, although, stated that the respondents have attacked on them when they tried to intervene the respondents who were beating his son while returning from the school, but, according to him, at that time about 40 persons had gathered on the spot to witness the occurrence, but none of them was produced by the prosecution to corroborate their version in the manner the attack was laid by the respondents on the complainant party. He also admitted in his cross-examination that respondent Ashok Kumar had lodged a case against his son Sanjay Kumar on 21st - 4 - December, 1997 for causing injuries to Ashok Kumar respondent. He expressed his ignorance whether Ashok Kumar respondent was medically examined in CHC, Shahpur on the said date. He was confronted with his earlier version with respect to the fact that Vinesh Kumar while coming from the school was given beatings wherein it was not so mentioned. He further admitted that on 23rd December, 1997 a case against his son was also registered under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of respondent Joginder Singh. PW-4, Vinesh Kumar is the son of the complainant, stated that he was attacked by the respondents. When his parents came there, they were also attacked, but because of the intervention of Jagdish Chand, Karam Singh and few others they were saved. He also admitted that a case was got registered a day before the alleged incident by respondent Ashok Kumar against his brother Sanjay Kumar. He also expressed his ignorance about the injuries having been sustained by respondent Mohinder Singh and also by respondent Joginder Singh. Prosecution sought to corroborate its story by the statement of PW-5 Daljeet Singh, but he denied that the alleged occurrence had taken place in his presence. Even PW-6 Jagroop Singh only stated about the hurling of abuses by the respondents to Vinesh Kumar and when he came to the spot, the respondents had disbursed. He was unable to say as to who gave beatings to the respondents. In nutshell the said witness was declared hostile as he also did not support the prosecution in its entirety. PW-8 Jagdish Chand, the elder brother of PW-2 Roop Chand, admitted that a case was also registered against his nephew Vikas alias Vickky under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. He denied that on account of retaliation the present case was foisted upon the respondents. Although, PW-9 Karam Singh stated that the respondents attacked the complainant party, but did not explain as to how the respondents aforesaid have sustained grievous injuries on their - 5 - persons. Rather he denied that Mohinder Singh has sustained any injury in the attack laid by the complainant party. However, he also admitted that at the instance of respondent Joginder Singh a case was registered against Vikas alias Vickky. He further admitted that the respondents are the members of Scheduled Caste and the complainant party belongs to the upper caste. PW-3 Dr. Ajay Dutta besides proving the injuries sustained by the complainant party, also stated that respondent Ashok Kumar was medically examined a day earlier to the incident and he was having simple injuries, thereafter he had also examined respondents Geeta Devi, Ashok Kumar and Joginder Singh and found injuries on their persons. It is also in evidence that at the instance of the police respondents Ashok Kumar, Geeta Devi, Mohinder Singh and Joginder Singh were examined, Medico Legal Certificates are Ext.D-1, D-2, D-4 and D-5, respectively. Respondent Joginder Singh was having grievous hurt on his person. Although, Ashok Kumar sustained the injuries in the incident which took place on 21st December, 1997, a day earlier to the alleged incident, but so far as the other respondents/injured are concerned, prima facie there appears to be the injuries relating to the same incident. Even after the said incident immediately on the next day Joginder Singh was again attacked by Vikas alias Vickky and a case against him under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him as stated by the Investigating Officer. On critical examination of the statements of the above witnesses, it is evident from the record that both the parties are nourishing enmity between them and there were successive incidents of beating. In the present case, the injuries relatable to the incident caused on respondents Geeta Devi, Mohinder Singh and Joginder Singh have not been explained. However, the Investigating Officer Head - 6 - Constable Suresh Kumar, PW-10 stated where both the parties had sustained the injuries it was necessary to register the cross-cases, which probably appears to have not been done. Against the aforesaid background when no cross-case was registered at the instance of the respondent and more particularly when some of them had sustained injuries in the said incident, cross-cases should have been registered in order to find out as to who is the aggressor. The version given by the prosecution witnesses in the instant case is lop-sided view regarding the manner in which the incident had taken place. Therefore, in these circumstances, the learned Court below rightly gave the benefit of doubt to the accused/respondents, as such, it requires no interference. The appeal is without any merit and the same is dismissed. The respondents are discharged from the bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of this case. Records of the Court below be sent back forthwith. March 19, 2010. (Surinder Singh), (rc) Judge.