Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 123 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gian Chand

2014-02-25

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.11.2005 rendered by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karsog in Police Challan No. 88-II of 2004 whereby the respondents, who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under sections 323 and 325 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 24.10.2004 at about 3.15 P.M., PW-1 complainant Parwati Devi wife of Som Dutt was cleaning her utensils outside of her house on a public tap. Respondent Gian Chand suddenly reached on the spot and asked why she threw dirty water in their field. Respondent caught hold of her from her neck and pushed her towards field. Wife of respondent Gian Chand, Pawana Devi and mother in-law Shukari Devi also reached on the spot. Respondent Pawna Devi twisted her arm and respondent Gian Chand gave beatings to her with fist blow on her stomach. She raised alarm. Shawanu Ram reached the spot and saved the complainant from the respondent. Thereafter, FIR Ex.PW-5/A was registered. The matter was investigated by the police. Challan was put up in the court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses in all to prove the case against the respondents. Statements of the respondents were recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Case of the respondents is of simplicitor denial. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondents on 25.11.2005. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Mr. Virender Verma, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondents. 5. Mr. Arvind Sharma has supported the judgment dated 25.11.2005. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 7. PW-1 Parwati Devi has deposed that on 24.10.2004, she was cleaning her utensils. At 3.30 P.M. respondent Gian Chand dragged her to the field and asked her not to throw dirty water in her field. Thereafter, she was given beatings by her mother-in-law and her sister-in-law also started giving beatings to her. Her sister-in-law twisted her arm. She fractured her finger. Thereafter, her mother-in-law put mud in her mouth. She raised alarm. After 15 minutes Shawanu Ram reached on the spot. She has admitted about the litigation going on between the parties. 8. Thereafter, she was given beatings by her mother-in-law and her sister-in-law also started giving beatings to her. Her sister-in-law twisted her arm. She fractured her finger. Thereafter, her mother-in-law put mud in her mouth. She raised alarm. After 15 minutes Shawanu Ram reached on the spot. She has admitted about the litigation going on between the parties. 8. PW-2 Shawanu Ram has deposed that he heard the cries of Parwati Devi on 24.10.2004 at about 3.30 P.M. According to him, Shukri Devi and Pawana Devi had caught hold of PW-1 Parwati Devi. He saved her from the clutches of Pawana and Shukri. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the tap is not visible from his house. He has also admitted that he reached the spot after the quarrel had taken place. 9. PW-3 Maltu Devi has deposed that she has seen the respondents giving beatings to Parwati Devi. In her cross-examination, she has categorically deposed that she did not know how the fight ensued. However, fact of the matter is that name of PW-3 Maltu Devi was not mentioned in FIR. 10. PW-5 Balam Ram has proved the copy of FIR Ex.PW-5/A dated 24.10.2004. PW-6 Parma Ram has investigated the matter. He has admitted in his cross-examination that there is no tap shown in mark ‘B’. He did not know that Parwati Devi has received any injury. 11. PW-7 Dr. Parkash Chand has proved the MLC Ex.PW-7/A. According to MLC Ex.PW-7/A, injury Nos. 1 to 3 were simple in nature caused with blunt weapon. Injury No.2 was grievous in nature caused by blunt weapon. The police has not recovered any weapon. 12. Statement of PW-1 Parwati Devi has not been corroborated by any other independent witness. PW-2 Shawanu Ram had reached the spot after the quarrel was over. Name of PW-3 Maltu Devi was not even stated in the FIR. The litigation is going on between the parties. All the injuries stated to have been caused by blunt weapon. The weapon has not been recovered by the Police. PW-6 Parma Ram has not noticed any injury on the body of complainant. 13. The learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution. There is no occasion to this Court to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karsog. 14. The weapon has not been recovered by the Police. PW-6 Parma Ram has not noticed any injury on the body of complainant. 13. The learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution. There is no occasion to this Court to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karsog. 14. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged.