State of Himachal Pradesh vs Ajay Kumar, Naveen Kumar, Anil Kumar and Satinder Kumar

Surinder Singh, Judge

The acquittal of the respondents/accused has been challenged by the State in the present appeal precisely on the ground that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in the right perspective. Heard and gone through the record.

On 16.7.2003, during noon, PW-1 Praveen Kumar was present in his shop with his workers namely, Pushotam, Amar Jeet and Sher Singh. According to the prosecution case, respondents armed with ''Dandas'' came to his shop and gave beatings to him, as a result of which, he sustained bleeding injury on his head. His son was also given beatings. His workers intervened and they separated him from the assailants. While leaving, the respondents criminally intimidated the complainant and his family members with dire consequences.

The FIR was lodged. The Police swung into action. The medical examination of the complainant was got conducted from PW-4 Dr. Neelam Mehta. She issued Medico Legal Certificate Ext.PW-4/A qua Rajat, son of the complainant. She also noticed injuries and issued MLC Ext. PW-3/A qua complainant Praveen Kumar. All the injuries have been stated to be simple in nature having been caused within 24 hours. Police also recorded statements of the witnesses. On the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court against the respondents for their trial. At the end of trial, they were acquitted on the ground that the complainant is alleged to have been attacked by the respondents who were having sticks, but there was only one simple injury on his person, whereas there could have been more than one on each of the injured. Further the parties were litigating in the courts for the last 3-4 years and with respect to the same incident, the mother of the respondents, Smt. Saina had also lodged report, wherein she had stated that she was being given beatings by the complainant party and sustained injuries, but her complaint was not properly investigated. The enmity amongst the parties is writ large and no independent witness was examined to corroborate their version. Thus, the learned trial Court gave them benefit of doubt.

I reappraised the prosecution evidence. Investigating Officer, PW-5 Barfi Ram admitted in his cross-examination that Smt. Saina had also lodged FIR with respect to the same incident; she had sustained injuries; she was also got medically examined and her report was taken down as stated by her, but only a Kalandra u/s 107/105 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed against the complainant party. He clearly admitted that Smt. Saina was attacked by the complainant party, whereas the case of the complainant was that he was attacked by the respondents while sitting in his shop. Surprisingly, there was only one injury on his person having been caused by ''Lathis'' by four persons. He did not say anything about the presence of Saina, whereas Investigating Officer PW-5 Barfi Ram stated as aforesaid that it was the complainant party who had caused injuries to Saina. The very nexus of the incident was kept hidden like an iceberg. The case should have been properly investigated to find out as to who was the aggressor.

From the evidence on record, it is not concluded beyond reasonable doubt as to who was the forerunner of the attack. In view of this, reasonable doubt arises, the benefit of which was rightly given by the learned trial Court to the respondents which requires no interference. As such, the appeal filed by the State is without any merit, hence dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of this case.