IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.538 of 2002 Date of decision : April 29, 2009 State of H.P. .. Appellant. Versus Kuldeep Chand and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. For the appellant : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Atul Sood, Advocate vice Mr. B.N. Misra, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 31.1.2002 of trial Magistrate, whereby respondents Kuldeep Chand and others, who were sent up for trial for offences, under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC, have been acquitted. 2. A report was lodged with the police on 26.8.1999 by PW-3 Veena Devi alleging that on the previous evening she had been beaten up by respondent Kuldeep Chand, her husband, by means of a danda as a result of which she sustained number of injuries. Police got her medically examined and it was found that she had sustained fracture of bones of left forearm. Police investigated the case and challaned not only respondent Kuldeep Chand, the husband of PW-3 Veena Devi, but also Mahender Singh, a brother of respondent Kuldeep Chand, Smt. Vikrma Devi wife of respondent Mahender Singh and Smt. Dasi, mother of respondent Kuldeep Chand. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW-3 Veena Devi, her father-in-law PW-4 Munshi Ram, i.e the father of respondent Kuldeep Chand, as eye witnesses. Though both of them testified that the respondents had given beatings to Veena Devi, yet there are some inherent contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence, which make their testimony highly doubtful. In the earliest version, which was given to the police by PW-3 Veena Devi, vide report Ext.PW3/A, respondents Mahender Singh, Vikrma Devi and Dasi are not named as accused. Accusation is only against respondent Kuldeep Chand. Further, respondent Kuldeep Chand is alleged to have caused the injuries with a danda, per Ext.PW3/A, but while in the witness box PW-3 Veena Devi stated that she was caused injuries by means of a Saria (iron rod). She specifically stated that no injury was caused by means of any danda. Again, though the prosecution examined Munshi Ram, the father of respondent Kuldeep Chand and father-in-law of PW- 3 Veena Devi, as an eye witness, his name does not figure as an eye witness in the earliest version given to the police. Even in her testimony in the Court PW-3 Veena Devi did not say that her father-in- law Munshi Ram was there and he witnessed the occurrence. 4. Plea taken by the respondents is that PW-3 Veena Devi had gone to her parents on the fateful day and while returning home, she fell from an auto-rickshaw and sustained injuries, but falsely implicated them, because the parties are having strained relations. It has been admitted by PW-3 Veena Devi as also by PW-4 Munshi Ram that the parties are having strained relations and PW-3 Veena Devi lives separate from her husband Kuldeep Chand, respondent herein. PW-4 Munshi Ram is also not having good relations with the respondents and he too lives separately. …3… 5. In view of the above stated position, I do not think this to be a fit case for interference in the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. April 29, 2009(ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J