IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 21 of 2001 Decided on: 8.12.2010 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Parkash Chand & Ors. ..…Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. A.G. For the respondents : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. R.B. Misra,J. (Oral) The present criminal appeal has come-up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted, in reference to the impugned judgment dated 10.8.2000, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, District Una, H.P. in Case No. 20-II-1999, acquitting the respondents-accused for the offence, under Sections 323, 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that on 14.7.1998, at about 9.00 P.M., the throat of Des Raj complainant was pressed and when his tongue came out of his mouth, respondents-accused Gautam Singh cut it by his teeth. On investigation, it revealed 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 that Shama Devi, wife of injured, Madhu, his sister-in-law, Sansar Chand and Jyoti rescued injured person from respondents-accused and accordingly the matter was reported to Panchayat, who did not take any heed thereon. Accordingly, complaint was filed and on investigation, the respondents- accused persons were charged for the offences, under Sections 324, 323, 506, 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as eight prosecution witnesses, whereas, the respondents-accused through their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. 3. On analysis of prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we find that keeping in view the injury sustained by the injured, the charge under Section 326 was converted to Section 324 IPC. PW-3, injured, has deposed that respondent- accused Gautam had cut his tongue when his sister-in-law Madhu, his wife PW-2, Jyoti and Sansar Chand (not examined) came for his rescue. PW-2, Shama Devi, his wife and PW-4 Madhu, Sister-in-law of the injured in their endeavour to support the prosecution case had only seen one of the respondent-accused cutting tongue of the injured that too in darkness, as the incident took place at about 9.00 P.M. in front of the house of Devi Dass and Jagan Nath, whereas, in the site plan the houses of injured and Sansar Chand had been shown adjacent to it. The place, where the incident took place, is surrounded by 10 to 15 houses and 10 to 15 persons were also 3 gathered on the spot. However, only related persons were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 4. On scrutiny of prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we notice that PW-2, wife of injured in her cross- examination, has materially contradicted the testimony of injured by saying that the injured had sustained many injuries person even on his ribs and throat as his ribs were broken and throat was swollen for about one month, whereas, PW-3 the injured himself had admitted in his cross-examination that he had not sustained any injury on his throat and even no injury on his ribs was caused. PW-4 has stated that even throat had become bluish and besides tongue injury, many other injuries were caused to the injured. On scrutiny of MLR Ext.PW1/A, it indicate that injured had not sustained any injury on his throat or ribs. Even, there was no corresponding injury in relation to injury No. 1 as has been admitted by PW-1 Dr. Lekhi in his cross-examination. PW-3 injured has stated on oath that co- accused Gautam had forcibly pressed his throat and when his tongue came out, it was cut by the respondent-accused. PW-3 has also stated that he was dashed against ‘Danga’ by respondent-accused Gautam, as mentioned in Ext,PW7/E, which has not been duly proved disclosing that his throat was forcibly pressed and his head was hit against stones of ‘Danga’ as there was no injury even on the backside of the head or on the forehead, which manifestly makes statements of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 unreliable and unbelievable. As regards injuries No. 1 and 2, no opinion could be given on injury No. 2 due to loosening of tooth and injury which was referred to Dental 4 Surgeon but no such report was brought by the prosecution. Injury No. 1 could not be ascertained as no external mark was visible. Though, PWs-2,3 and 4 have stated that all the respondents-accused had dashed injured against ‘Danga’ and multiple kicks and fist blows were given but injured had merely sustained one injury No. 1, which too was not found to be external injury by the Doctor. Admittedly, injured and respondents-accused No. 1 and 2 had strained relations, as such, the possibility of false implication of respondents-accused cannot be ruled out, more so, when 10 or 15 persons were assembled on the spot, but no independent witness was examined. 5. On analysis of materials on record and prosecution witnesses, learned Additional Chief Judicial had rightly arrived at the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered view too, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the respondents-accused. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of any merit is, therefore, dismissed. 6. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondent-accused, are hereby discharged. (R.B. Misra), Judge. December 8, 2010, (Sanjay Karol), Judge. (vs)