State of H.P. vs Ram Pal and Another

Surjit Singh, J.—State has appealed against the judgment dated 11th February, 2003, of learned trial Magistrate, whereby Respondents Ram Pal and Khushal Singh, who were tried for offences, under Sections 323, 325, 506, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted.

Report was lodged with the police by PW-5 Dilbagh Singh that sons of Respondent Khushal Singh, with the help of some Harijans of the area, had been indulging in illicit felling of Khair trees and trade of Khair wood of illicitly felled trees and that they apprehend lodging of report against them by him (PW-5 Dilbagh Singh). It was further reported that on 23rd November, 1998, around 12.30 a.m., when he (PW-5 Dilbagh Singh) went out of his house to urinate and was passing through his courtyard, for going towards the field, he noticed both the Respondents and Sudesh Kumar, wife of Respondent Khushal Singh, standing in his courtyard and when he questioned them what they were doing in his courtyard, they retorted how did he dare to ask them such a thing. Respondent Ram Pal was allegedly armed with a Danda and he dealt a blow of that Danda on the left side of the face of PW-5 Dilbagh Singh. Respondent Khushal Singh instigated Respondent Ram Pal to give sound thrashing to PW-5 Dilbagh Singh. 10-12 Danda blows were given by Respondent Ram Pal to Dilbagh Singh. When PW-5 Dilbagh Singh raised alarm, his wife came out and on seeing her, the Respondents ran away.

Police got PW-5 Dilbagh Singh medically examined. Medically examination showed three simple and one grievous injuries on his person. The grievous injury was in the nature of loss of two teeth in the lower jaw.

Both the Respondents were challaned. They were charged with the offences, under Sections 323, 325, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and were, therefore, put on trial.

I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned Counsel representing the Respondents and gone through the record.

Testimony of PW-5 Dilbagh Singh is contradictory to the earliest version, which he gave to the police, vide report Ex. PW-5/A. As per Ex. PW-5/A, when PW-5 Dilbagh Singh came out to urinate, both the Respondents and Sudesh Kumari, wife of Respondent Khushal Singh, were already present in his courtyard, but while in the witness-box as PW-5, Dilbagh Singh stated that initially only Respondent Ram Pal was standing in his courtyard and when he asked him what he had been doing there he went to the nearby house of Respondent Khushal Singh and brought him (Khushal Singh) and his wife and thereafter he was given beating. Again, in the earliest version, copy Ex. PW-5/A, he got recorded that the Respondents ran away, after his wife came out but in the Court he stated that they ran away before his wife came. Though PW-7 Jiwan Lata, wife of PW-5 Dilbagh Singh, stated that she saw the Respondents giving beating to her husband, when she came out on hearing the cries of her husband, her testimony cannot be accepted in view of PW-5 Dilbagh Singh''s statement that the Respondent made their escape good before his wife came out.

Again, in the earliest version it is recorded that Respondent Ram Pal was armed with a Danda, but in the Court PW-5 Dilbagh Singh stated that Danda was with Khushal Singh, who handed over it to Ram Pal and instigated him to use the same to cause injuries to him (PW-5 Dilbagh Singh).

Further, according to the prosecution, DandaEx.P-1, which was used to cause injuries, had been produced by Respondent Ram Pal, during the investigation of the case, but PW-5 Dilbagh Singh stated in the cross-examination that the Danda had been handed over by him to the police.

Medical evidence also does not corroborate the version of PW-5 Dilbagh Singh, as rightly pointed out by the trial Court.

In view of the above stated position, I see no merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.