State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Desh Raj
2021 Latest Caselaw 4047 HP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
                           SHIMLA
                ON THE 23rd DAY OF AUGUST, 2021




                                                     .

                           BEFORE
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA





                CRIMINAL APPEAL No.160 of 2010
    Between:-





    STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                                              .....APPELLANT

    (BY, SH. RAM LAL THAKUR , ASSISTANT ADVOCATE

    GENERAL)

    AND

    1.    DESH RAJ



          SON OF SHRI HANS RAJ,
          RESIDENT OF ABADA BARANA,
          TEHSIL AND DISTRICT UNA, H.P.






    2.    HEERA LAL
          SON OF SHRI DESH RAJ,
          RESIDENT OF ABADA BARANA,





          TEHSIL AND DISTRICT UNA, H.P.
                                         ....RESPONDENTS
    (BY, SH. N.K. THAKUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, WITH
    SH. DIVYA RAJ SINGH, ADVOCATE)

    Reserved on: 20.08.2021
    Decided on: 23.08.2021
    _________________________________________________




                                    ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:55:45 :::CIS
                                       2


               This appeal coming on for hearing before this day,

    the Court passed the following:




                                                           .
                          JUDGMENT

FIR Number No. 304 dated 21.05.2003, registered in Police Station Una, under Sections 325,

323 read with Section 34 of IPC Criminal Case RBT-255-II/06/03, decided on 14.10.2009 Number by learned JMFC, Court No.III, Una, H.P.

r to Challenging the acquittal for the offences of hurt

and grievous hurt, the State came up before this Court by

filing the present appeal.

2. Based upon the statement of the investigator,

(PW-8) H.C Pradhan Singh, the case of the prosecution

unfolds as follows:

a) On 18.05.2003, the investigator, Pradhan Singh (PW-8) entered a complaint about the commission

of aforementioned offences in daily diary register, Ex.PW-3/A.

b) As per the said report, Shri Swarn Singh, PW-3, was returning alongwith his wife to home. When he reached near their house, the road was blocked by bamboo stair and water pipe was overlapping it.

When he tried to remove the pipe, then accused persons gave beatings to him as well as his wife.

c) After this incident, injured visited the hospital. The

.

investigator sought MLC of Swarn Singh, PW-3, and as per the report of the doctor, there was a

fracture of nasal bone, apart from other simple injuries.

d) The investigator procured MLC, Ex.PW-1/A, on

the basis of which, Rapat, Ex.PW-8/B, was sent to the police station for registration of FIR for the

commission of aforementioned offences. During

the course of investigation, the investigator procured X-Ray and discharge slip from the

hospital at Una and recorded summery of statements of the spot witnesses under Section 161

of Cr.P.C.

e) On completion of investigation, officer-in-charge of the police station prepared report under Section

173 of Cr.P.C and launched prosecution against both the accused persons.

3. Vide order dated 26.08.2003, learned JMFC

framed charges against the accused persons for the

commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 325

read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused persons did not

plead guilty and claimed trial.

.

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined

doctor, who had medically examined the injured,

radiographer, who had conducted X-Ray and apart from the

complainant, PW-3, his wife (PW-4) Santosh Kumari and

and the investigator.

r to two spot witnesses Piare Lal (PW-6) and Tirath Ram (PW-7)

5. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the

accused, in their statements recorded under Sections 313 of

Cr.PC, have denied the prosecution case. However, they did

not opt to lead evidence in defence.

6. Vide judgment, captioned above, the Trial Court

dismissed the prosecution's case and acquitted the accused

persons of all charges.

7. Challenging the acquittal, the State has come up

before this Court by filing the present appeal.

8. Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, Ld. Assistant Advocate

General, contended that neither the Ld. Trial Court appreciate

.

the evidence in its proper perspective nor adequately applied

the law. Thus, the Judgment needs to be overturned, and the

accused persons must be convicted.

9. Ld. Counsel for the accused contended that the

ANALYSIS AND REASONS r to judgment is well reasoned and calls for no interference.

10. As per the earliest version as recorded in daily

diary register, Ex.PW-3/A, on the basis of which, police

registered FIR, Swarn Singh (PW-3) explicitly stated that

when he was returning home on a scooter, then a bamboo

stair has blocked his path. The accused persons had put the

bamboo stair across the path and had also put a water pipe

over it. He removed the stair and the pipe so that he can

cross the path. On this, Desh Raj and his son Heera Lal

started fighting with them. Desh Raj had a stick in his hand

and both of them gave him beatings and also to his wife

Santosh Kumari (PW-4), due to which, he received injuries

on his nose and blood also stated oozing out.

.

11. In his statement on oath, PW-3 Swarn Singh,

reiterated his initial version. However, in cross-examination,

he denied the suggestion of the defence that the moment he

arrived at the spot, he started hurling abusing to the accused

persons and asked them to remove the pipe and because of

that, scuffle took place. He also denied that accused Desh Raj

had sustained injury on his thumb.

12. PW-4, Santosh Kumari, wife of the complainant

corroborated the allegations of her husband. In examination-

in-chief, she stated that on hearing commotion, persons from

the locality came and separated them. During cross-

examination, she denied that accused Desh Raj had sustained

injury on his thumb.

13. On the contrary, spot witness PW-6, Piare Lal,

stated in his examination-in-chief that both the complainant

and the accused were scuffling with each other and he

separated them. After being declared hostile, he did not

support the case of the prosecution. In cross-examination by

the defence, he admitted that he had noticed injury on the

.

thumb of Desh Raj and blood was oozing from it.

14. Similarly, another spot witness, Tirath Ram

(PW-7) corroborated the statement of PW-6 Piare Lal and

stated that both complainant and accused were scuffling with

15. to each other and they had separated them.

The analysis of the evidence proved on record,

establishes that even Desh Raj had received injuries on his

thumb. As per the earliest version of the complainant,

mentioned in complaint, Ex.PW-3/A, and coupled with the

statements of PW-3 and PW-4 on oath, they did not utter a

single word that how and in what manner Desh Raj had

sustained injury on his thumb.

16. Given above, they have concealed the genesis of

the occurrence and did not reveal true facts to the investigator

and also to the Court. Consequently, the prosecution has

failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, as such,

the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

17. I have gone through the judgment of acquittal

passed by learned trial Court, which is well reasoned and

.

does not call for any interference by this Court.

In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this

case, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed. Bail bonds are

discharged.

    August 23, 2021
       (R.Atal)
                       r         to            (Anoop Chitkara),
                                                  Judge