State of Himachal Pradesh vs Pancham Singh

Surinder Singh, J.—The respondent was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly causing fracture of the tooth of the complainant by giving fist blows.

Heard and gone through the evidence on record.

Precisely, the case of the prosecution can be stated thus. On 4th October, 1999, at about 3.00 p.m., Bhikham Singh, complainant, visited the office of Cooperative Agricultural Service Society, Tiara for withdrawing the money from his account. The respondent was the Secretary, who was present there. Complainant Bhikham Singh after withdrawing the amount, asked the respondent about the date of election of the Committee, but the respondent did not give proper reply. Thus, the complainant wrote a letter addressed to the President of the Society and presented it to the respondent to receive it in his capacity as a Secretary. The respondent took it and tore it off. Thereafter pushed the complainant out of the premises and gave him fist blows resulting into minor injuries and also fracture of the tooth.

The matter was reported to the police. The complainant was taken for his medical examination to P.H.C. Tiara from where he was referred to Dental Surgeon for expert opinion. PW-3 Dr. N.K. Behl gave his opinion, because of the fracture of root of left upper central later injury. To this effect he gave his opinion Ext. PW3-A on the Medico Legal Certificate, whereas injuries No. 2 and 3 were found to be simple in nature by PW1 Dr. V.K. Mahajan having been caused within 12 to 24 hours.

After completing investigation, the case was presented against the respondent for his trial for the aforesaid offences and at the end of the trial he was acquitted on the ground that the broken tooth was not produced to the police as well as to the Medical Officer Incharge in order to substantiate his version and also that there has been contradiction to this effect that the Investigating Officer stated in his cross-examination that one broken tooth was handed over to the Moharar Constable of the Police-Post, but there was no such recovery memo nor it was produced before the Doctor or the Court. Also, the learned trial Court did not find any reference in the complaint with respect to breaking of the tooth/teeth. Thus, the bald statement of the complainant was not relied upon.

I have reappraised the evidence on record.

The perusal of the initial report Ext. PW2/A lodged to the Police-Post did not make any reference with respect to the breaking of the tooth of the respondent. Further according to the complainant, he was taken by the Constable for the medical examination to P.H.C., Tiara on the same day, i.e., 4th October, 1999, but his medical certificate pertains to another date, i.e., 5th October, 1999 whereby the complainant was examined by PW-1 Dr. V.K. Mahajan at 12.50 p.m. Even the initial examination by the said doctor does not say anything about the breaking/fracture of the tooth. Rather with respect to injury No. 1 which was opined to be grievous, the said doctor only observed that there was a bleeding from the mouth cavity and right premolar was movable with corresponding injury on inner side. Thus he was sent for the expert opinion to the Dental Surgeon. The Dental Surgeon PW3 Dr. N.K. Behl had examined him at about 3.00 p.m. on 5th October, 1999. At that time the incisor was found missing from the socket. The injured did not say anything as to what had happened to the movable tooth. In the opinion of the doctor (Ext. PW3/A), he had given the reference that there was clot and it was healed injury. If his statement is seen with respect to the statement of the injured PW2 that he was given the blows on his face by the respondent, he lost one tooth (incisor) and one molar, we do not find any mention about it in his initial report Ext. PW2/A. Not only this, he further stated that both these teeth were lost on the spot, whereas PW3 Dr. V.K. Behl did not say anything about missing of any tooth. Whereas, PW7 Head Constable Hans Raj stated in the cross-examination that on the day when the report was lodged by the complainant in the Police-Post, on the same day the complainant had handed over his teeth to the Moharar Constable, but he admitted about not mentioning of the same in the report Ext. PW2/A. There is nothing on record even to substantiate this fact.

Further, initial medical examination which is alleged to have been conducted at P.H.C., Tiara on 4th October, 1999 remains a mystery as no report of the said medical examination is placed on record. It is also the case of the respondent that he was given beatings and because of fact that brother of complainant was also serving in the medical department and his medical was suppressed by the prosecution.

The only witness PW6 Rajesh in whose presence the incident is alleged to have taken place did not support the case of the prosecution.

Thus the statement of the complainant in view of above material contradictions cannot be relied upon.

The learned trial Court has taken note of the above facts while coming to its conclusion, therefore, the findings of acquittal are borne out from the record, which cannot be interfered with. As such, the appeal is dismissed being without any merit.

The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of this case.

Send down the record forthwith.