Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 511 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. KANTA DEVI

2013-06-10

R.B.MISRA

body2013
JUDGMENT R.B. MISRA, J. 1. THE present Criminal Appeal has come up for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of criminal Procedure in reference to judgment dated 10.02.2006, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in Case No.62-II/2004, acquitting the alleged accused/respondents under Sections 341, 323, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, in reference to FIR No.121 of 2004, dated 31.05.2004. 2. AS per prosecution, complainant Ram Piari of Dharamshala along with her daughter and her husband while extracting the maize, were assaulted by accused persons, where they have received injuries. FIR was lodged and medical examination was conducted by Dr. Naresh Gupta (PW.1). It has also come on record that both the parties were having civil litigation between themselves. As per version of Ram Piari (PW.2) she was assaulted by sticks (Dandas) and kicks, whereas, one assailant/(Neelam Kumari) was pregnant. As per version of Prem Lata /(PW.5) she along with her mother was assaulted with fists, kicks and sticks for about 10-15 minutes, as a result of which they received injuries. PW.2, PW.5 and Sh.Baldev Singh (PW.6) have given different version with regard to the manner of beating. According to PW.6, the accused persons had beaten the complainant with hands, such version is contrary to the testimony of PW.2 and PW.5, who have stated that the complainant, her daughter and her husband were beaten by sticks. According to medical evidence, except small laceration on the right side of the nose no other injuries, swelling or tenderness were noticed on the person of Prem Lata (PW.5). As per PW.1, he has also not noticed any external injuries on the body of Ram Piari and Prem Lata, whereas, as per version of PW.2, Surjit Singh was having stick in his hand and had beaten her daughter. Whereas, as per medical opinion, no apparent injury was noticed by PW.1. As per the versions of PW.2, PW.5 and PW.6, Ram Piari (PW.2) and Prem Lata (PW.5) were beaten by the accused persons for 10-15 minutes, but it cannot be believed that after such alleged beating no apparent injuries were noticed during the medical examination, moreso, the existing enmity between the parties creates doubt in the prosecution case. 3. As per the versions of PW.2, PW.5 and PW.6, Ram Piari (PW.2) and Prem Lata (PW.5) were beaten by the accused persons for 10-15 minutes, but it cannot be believed that after such alleged beating no apparent injuries were noticed during the medical examination, moreso, the existing enmity between the parties creates doubt in the prosecution case. 3. IN my considered view, on analysis of the prosecution witnesses and the medical witness, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, has rightly arrived at the finding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and had rightly given the benefit of doubt to the accused persons and had rightly acquitted all of them. 4. AFTER scrutiny of the material on record, I do not find any material which may indicate that the finding and the view taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate is erroneous. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the criminal appeal, accordingly, the same is dismissed.