Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1835 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Anil Kumar

2015-12-10

RAJIV SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 8.4.2015 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dalhousie in Police Challan No. 81-II of 2011 whereby the respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as the “accused” for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offences punishable under sections 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 23.10.2010, PW-1 complainant Charan Singh reported the matter to Police Station, Chowari. According to him, when he went to village Nali to supervise the hydro project goods, accused started abusing him and when he asked the accused, as to why he was abusing him, accused administered beatings with kicks and fist blows as well as with the help of stones. He sustained injuries. He was medically examined. The MLC Ex.PW-6/A was obtained. PW-3 Dr. N.K. Surya opined injury Nos. 2 to 6 to be simple. FIR Ex.PW-5/A was registered against the accused. The police investigated the case and the challan was put up in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied the prosecution version. The trial court acquitted the accused. 4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Addl. A.G. has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the State and have gone through the judgment meticulously. 6. The incident has happened on 23.10.2010. According to PW-1 Charan Singh on 23.10.2010 at about 5.15 P.M. at place called “Sun Shine Hydro Project”, Nali, accused approached him and started abusing him. The accused hit him with a stone and also gave fist and kick blows. The incident was witnessed by PW-2 Sandeep Kumar. He was medically examined at F.R.U. Chowari. 7. PW-2 Sandeep Kumar has deposed that on 23.10.2010 when he was going from Sun Shine Hydro Project after his duty, accused came near the store of the project and started abusing. The accused quarrelled with the complainant and gave him fist blows. I.O. took into possession stone Ex.P-1 vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/B in his presence. 8. PW-4 Raj Kumar has not supported the case of the prosecution. He was declared hostile. 9. PW-5 Vijay Kumar is the Investigating Officer. The accused quarrelled with the complainant and gave him fist blows. I.O. took into possession stone Ex.P-1 vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/B in his presence. 8. PW-4 Raj Kumar has not supported the case of the prosecution. He was declared hostile. 9. PW-5 Vijay Kumar is the Investigating Officer. 10. PW-3 Dr. N.K. Surya has proved the MLC Ex.PW-3/A. He noticed the following injuries on the person of PW-1 Charan Singh: 1. Bleeding from bilateral nostril, blood clotted dark brown in colour, mild tendering, pain in the nose present, mild fresh blood present from the right side of nostril. 2. A mild swelling present below the right eye, pain and tenderness present. 3. A mild swelling and tenderness on the upper arm left side (on the lateral side) 4. A mild difficulty in raising the arms bilateral) pain in the shoulder bilateral. 5. A mild swelling present in the middle of lower leg on the right side. 6. Abrasions present on the right lower leg (Lateral side) two in numbers about 4 to 5 cm both in size away from the swelling in the middle of lower. 11. PW-6 Dr. Seema Madar has deposed that injury Nos. 2 to 6 were simple in nature. However, injury No.1 was found to be grievous in nature. She has proved MLC of injured Ex.PW-6/A. 12. The complainant, in his complaint, has stated that many persons had witnessed the incident. He has not mentioned the name of PW-2 Sandeep Kumar in the complaint. However, complainant PW-1 Charan Singh, in his examination-in-chief, has deposed that PW-2 Sandeep Kumar had witnessed the occurrence. PW-2 Sandeep Kumar is interested witness being the colleague of PW-1 Charan Singh. PW-2 Sandeep Kumar has not deposed that accused has hit the complainant with stone. According to PW-2 Sandeep Kumar, Sh. Kushwant and Dharam Pal were also present on the spot, but they were not examined. Kushwant and Dharam Pal were material witnesses and ought to have been examined. 13. Consequently, in view of analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused for offences punishable under sections 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and there is no need to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the trial court. 14. Accordingly, there is not merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.