State of H.P vs Mohinder Singh and Others

Surinder Singh, J.—The instant appeal has been directed by the State against the acquittal of the respondents in criminal case No.86-2of 2000 decided on 1.4.2004 under Sections 341, 325, 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Heard and gone through the record of the case.

In short, prosecution story can be stated thus. On 10.4.2000 PW Vidya Sukh complainant had gone to the house of Ishwar Dutt to attend ''Hawan'' Ceremony. On his return around 10:30 P.M to his house, the respondents met him on the way in the drunken state and fisticuffed him which resulted injuries on the various partS of his body. The matter was reported to the police by making a statement EX.PW1/A u/s 154 of Criminal Procedure Code which culminated into the F.I.R. EX.PW1/D. The complainant was got medically examined.

The police visited the spot, prepared the site plan, recorded the statements of the witnesses and finding a case against the respondents for the offences aforesaid, challan was presented against them in the Court.

The respondents were charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted for the offences aforesaid. Their acquittal is under challenge in the instant appeal.

The stand taken by the respondents is that the complainant was drunk. He was celebrating the occasion along with the respondents and in that process by dancing he fell down and sustained injuries.

Pertinently Mohinder Singh respondent was already known to the complainant. In the statement EX.PW1/A on the basis of which the FIR EX.PW4/D was formally registered, he did not mention the name of the said respondent. Even Mohinder Singh was attributed having given a push to him. It is not understandable how the name of said respondent escaped, remains unexplained on record.

Further, in the initial story as propounded by the complainant after the incident he was brought by Ram Kumar, Ram Krishan and Keshav Nand on upper side of the place of alleged incident and was made to lie on the tarpaulin. But, during the trial, he did not make such a reference when examined as a witness. Rather, he transposed the name of Udham Singh alleging him to be an eye witness of alleged incident. Surprisingly, the name of Udham Singh also does not find mentioned in the F.I.R.

Also it is noticed that names of Bimal Kumar and Surjan Bhagat were introduced by him at the later stage during the trial only.

The complainant further stated that he was brought to his home by his wife, son and his brother. But, even this fact finds no mention in the F.I.R. None of them are the witnesses. These facts raise a doubt on the version of the complainant and the manner in which the alleged injuries were caused to him.

Further PW-2 Bimal Kumar did not know about the case of the prosecution. Whereas, PW-3 Udham Singh has given a different version than that of the complainant. He has stated that the complainant and the respondents were drinking, dinning and dancing in the field. Respondent Ajit Kumar gave a slap to the complainant, on this he intervened and advised them not to quarrel. Thereafter again they started dinning and dancing. He did not make even a fleeting reference in his statement that respondents had given beatings to the complainant or that he was thrown down from the Danga in the field. Although, PW-7 4 Shanta Kumari stated having seen the complainant in an injured condition but she was an eye witness to state as to how the complainant had sustained injuries.

PW-6 Dr. Rakesh Negi had examined Vidya Sukh complainant and found as much as three injuries on his person thereafter, he referred him to IGMC Shimla. After having gone through the discharge slip, he opined that there was a fracture of C-2 and C-3 with monopresis of the left upper llimb, which was grievous in nature. PW-5 Dr. Sandeep Verma is alleged to have treated the complainant in IGMC Shimla who gave his opinion based upon the discharge slip, which was not issued by him. However, he stated that the fracture in question could be caused due to fall. This is what, the accused/respondents have suggested in the cross examination of the complainant and other witnesses. More so, the evidence also suggests that the complainant himself was under the influence of liquor. Thus, the defence raised stands probablized.

Therefore, in the above circumstances, the version given by the complainant stands not proved, beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, the findings of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court are borne out from record which do not require any interference by this court as such, the appeal sans merit, accordingly dismissed.

The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during proceedings of this case.

The Appeal stand disposed of