1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 70 of 2002. Judgement reserved on : 10.3.2009 Date of decision: 13.3.2009 State of H.P. …….Appellant Vs. Rachhpal Singh & Ors. ….. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Negi, Advocate vice Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate Kuldip Singh, Judge The State, aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, acquitting the respondents on 31.7.2001 in Case No.58/II of 2000 for commission offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506 read with section 34 IPC, has filed this appeal. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW-1 Kusum Lata complainant and her brother-in-law respondent No.1 Rachhpal Singh had been residing separately at village Badhera and Jallandhar respectively. On 28.10.2000 at 10 a.m. respondent No.1 and his wife Baby Rani respondent No.2 came from Jallandhar. At about 11 a.m. PW-1 Kusum Lata returned to her house after bringing fodder from the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 fields. At about 1.30 p.m. respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 started collecting household articles stating that they had separated themselves from the family. They also stated that they wanted to take mother-in-law of PW-1 with them to Jallandhar since she was being not looked after properly. PW-1 requested them to wait for her husband, but in vain. Thereafter respondents No.1,2 and respondent No.3 Ram Asra caught PW-1 and gave her beatings with the aid of danda. Rachhpal Singh gave a tooth bite on her right cheek and on right shoulder. The respondent No.3 gave fist blows to her and respondent No.2 hit complainant on her forehead which started bleeding. PW-1 was rescued by PW-2 Parja Ram. Raghubir Singh elder brother-in-law of PW-1 and his wife Kamla Devi had also witnessed the occurrence. The matter was reported to the police and FIR Ex.PP came to be registered. The police came into action, injured was got medically examined , recoveries were made and on completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court and the respondents were charged for offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined 7 witnesses and produced some documents. The statements of respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the prosecution case. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondents, hence this appeal. 3. I have heard Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State and Mr. Pankaj Negi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and have gone through the record. Mr. Bansal has submitted that learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has misconstrued and misinterpreted the material on record. He has erred 3 in disbelieving the statement of PW-1 Kusum Lata injured and other evidence on record. He has submitted that acquittal of the respondents is not inconsonance with the proved evidence on record. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that learned Court below has rightly appreciated the evidence and no fault can be found in the order of acquitted recorded by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. 4. Ex.PA is the copy of rapat No.16 dated 29.10.2000, Police Station, Gagret which was recorded at 4.10 p.m. on 28.10.2000 in which it has been stated that complainant Kusum Lata had been residing with her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and her husband. Ram Asra brother- in-law resides in the house whereas Rachhpal Singh lives in Jallandhar. On 28.10.2000 in the morning Rachhpal Singh and his wife Baby Rani came from Jallandhar. The complainant returned with fodder at 11 a.m. At about 1.30 p.m. Rachhpal Singh and Baby Rani started separating beds and utensils. They said that they would take their mother-in-law also with them since she was not looked after properly. The complainant requested to wait for her husband. On this Rachhpal, Ram Asra and Baby Rani caught complainant and Baby Rani gave danda blow on her right arm, Rachhpal gave tooth bite on her right cheek, he also gave tooth bite on her right shoulder. Ram Asra brother-in-law gave fist blows. She suffered injury on her forehead with the beatings given by Baby Rani and from that injury blood also oozed. On hearing her cries Parja Ram came on the spot. Raghubir Singh another brother-in-law of the complainant and Kamla Devi his wife kept on standing there but they did not come to her rescue. On the basis of 4 rapat No.16 FIR Ex.PP was registered, spot map Ex.P-2 was prepared, sickle Ex.P-4 and danda Ex.P-5 were recovered vide recovery memo Ex.PE. The broken bangles were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PC. The blood stained clothes Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PE. On the application Ex.PM complainant was medically examined and Doctor issued MLC Ex.PF. 5. PW-1 Kusum Lata has stated that Baby Rani gave bamboo stick blows on her right arm and she had also gave sickle blow on her forehead. Rachhpal Singh gave tooth bite on her cheek , Ram Asra gave fist blows to her. On hearing her cries Parja and Batan came and rescued her. In this process, her bangles and jumper were broken which were handed over to police. She was medically examined. PW-2 Parja Ram has stated that on 28.10.2000 at about 1 p.m. Baby Rani, Rachhpal Singh and Ram Asra gave beatings to Kusum Lata. Baby Rani gave danda and sickle blows on the forehead of Kusum Lata. Rachhpal Singh gave tooth bite on the cheek of Kusum Lata, Ram Asra gave fist blows to her. He and Batan Chand rescued the complainant. PW-3 Maha Singh is the witness of recovery of danda and sickle but he did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. PW-4 Kamal Deen is also the witness of recovery of danda but he did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. 6. PW-5 Dr. N.K. Bhardwaj had examined PW-1 on 28.10.2000 and issued MLC Ex.PF. This witness has nowhere stated that he noticed any tooth bite on the cheek of the complainant. PW-6 Rangila Ram is the Radiographer and is a witness of formal nature. PW-7 HC Balbir Singh is the Investigating Officer. In their statements respondents have denied the prosecution case. 5 7. The first version of the complainant is recorded in rapat Ex.PA wherein she has stated that Baby Rani gave danda blows on her right arm and Ram Asra gave fist blows to her. She has also stated that with the beatings given by Baby Rani she has suffered injury on her forehead. In Ex.PA she has stated that Parja Ram came on the spot on hearing her cries. In Ex.PA, PW-1 has nowhere stated that sickle blow was given by Baby Rani on her forehead. She has stated that Rachhpal Singh gave tooth bite on her cheek as well as on right shoulder and other two accused caught her but she has not stated in Ex.PA that Rachhpal Singh infact had given any beatings to her. In the Court she has stated that Baby Rani gave bamboo stick blow on her forehead then stated that it was given on her right arm. She has also stated that sickle blow was given by Baby Rani on her forehead. Rachhpal Singh gave tooth bite on her cheek which is not supported by MLC Ex.PF. In the statement of complainant in the Court she has not stated that Rachhpal Singh had given tooth bite on her shoulder. She has stated in the Court that Parja and Batan came on the spot and rescued her. 8. Parja has been examined as PW-2. He has contradicted PW-1 saying that Baby Rani gave danda and sickle blows on the forehead of PW-1. He has also stated that Rachhpal gave tooth bite on the cheek of PW-1, but no such injury was found on the cheek of complainant in MLC Ex.PF. Batan Chand has not been examined and no explanation has been given by the prosecution for not examining Batan Chand. It has also come in evidence that Raghubir Singh brother-in-law of the complainant and his wife Kamla were present but they were not examined in the Court. There are material contradictions 6 in the statements of PW-1 Kusum Lata and PW-2 Parja Ram. The complainant herself has improved her case in the Court. The version given by the complainant to the police is not the same which she disclosed in the Court. The medical evidence is of no help to the prosecution in absence of proof how the injuries were received on the person of complainant which were noticed in MLC Ex.PF. It appears, the relations between the parties were not good, therefore, it is not safe to rely on the sole testimony of complainant Kusum Lata in absence of corroboration. It is not the case of the prosecution that the place of occurrence is an isolated place and witnesses were not available on the spot at the time of occurrence. On the contrary the prosecution story gives an indication that at the time of alleged occurrence many persons were on the spot but except PW-2 Parja Ram who has contradicted PW-1 complainant on material particular, no other independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has appreciated the material on record properly. The view taken by him cannot be said to be perverse or not at all possible. No case for interference is made out resultantly, appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds discharged. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge March 13, 2009 (sks)