State of Himachal Pradesh vs Naresh Chauhan and Another

Sanjay Karol, J.—Assailing the judgment dated 9.11.2005, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. II, Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 151/2 of 04/03, titled as State of H.P. vs. Naresh Chauhan & another, whereby respondents-accused have been acquitted, the State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16.7.2003 at about 11.30 p.m. accused had parked their vehicle on the road side in front of the house of complainant Ashutosh, which led into an altercation. Accused Naresh Chauhan and Jeet Singh gave beatings to the complainant with iron rod and fist blows. The police was informed and accordingly HC Bodh Raj (PW-6) visited the spot and recorded statement of the complainant (Ex. PW-4/A), on the basis of which FIR No. 221 of 2003 (Ext. PW 3/A) dated 16.7.2003 was registered at Police Station Sadar. The complainant was got medically examined from Dr. D.C. Chauhan (PW-2) who issued M.L.C. (Ext. PW 2/A). The complainant had received six injuries. Blood stained clothes of the complainant were taken into possession. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial.

Accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 341, 323, 506 all read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined seven witnesses and statements of the accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C. were also recorded, in which they pleaded false implication. No evidence in defence was led. Appreciating the testimony of the witnesses, learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons of the charged offences. Hence, the present appeal.

Having perused the testimony of complainant PW-4, I am of the considered view that the trial Court rightly did not rely upon the same as it lacked confidence. Though initially complainant deposed that the incident took place in the presence of Roshan Lal (PW-7) and Dinesh Thakur (PW-5) but in the very next breath, he clarified that Roshan Lal was seen by him for the first time in the Court. In the FIR there is no reference of the incident being witnessed by PW-5 and PW-7.

That apart the incident took place during broad day light but none of the neighbours were associated by the police during investigation or examined in the Court by the prosecution. The presence of PW-5 and PW-7 as has been observed by the Court below is doubtful. It appears that these witnesses have been introduced subsequently. Moreover, PW-7 was declared hostile and despite cross-examination nothing fruitful could be elicited from his testimony.

It stands established on record that the complainant received certain injuries. This fact stands proved from the testimony of PW-2. The fact of the matter is that even Dr. D.C. Chauhan has opined that the injuries could be sustained as a result of fall.

Coming back to the testimony of PW-4, it is quite apparent that his version that blows were given with iron rod, does not appear to be correct. He has categorically not deposed about the same. The testimony of PW-4 also does not disclose as to which of the accused persons had given beatings to him. His statement is not specific, attributing role to any particular person. That the statements of the alleged spot witnesses were recorded by the police stands falsified from the version so narrated by the independent witnesses as also the police officials. This witness also could not state as to whether Motorcycle actually belonged to the accused or not. The witness in cross-examination has suggested that police had recorded the statement of a passer by, which fact, categorically stands denied by the Investigating Officer (PW-6). As such, testimony of PW-4 cannot be said to be reliable and inspiring in confidence at all. The learned trial Court has correctly and completely appreciated the matter so placed by the prosecution.

Having perused the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on record it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material on record. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Md. Ankoos and Others Vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., , it cannot be said that the Court below incorrectly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for.

As such, the present appeal is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.