Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2039 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Taro Devi

2016-09-22

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SANJAY KAROL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the State has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una in Sessions Trial No. 10/2008 dated 17.1.2009 vide which the learned trial court has acquitted the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The case of prosecution was that the complainant who is a resident of village Dharampur, Tehsil Haroli, District Una on 20.2.2008 at around 7:30 p.m. along with his son had gone to bring medicine for his ailing wife and when complainant along with his son reached a little ahead of his courtyard near the house of accused, accused Taro Devi, her son and daughter attacked him. Taro Devi’s son gave a danda blow on his head, whereas accused Taro Devi and her daughter beat him with fist and kick blows. Son of the complainant rushed to his house and informed his mother about the said incident. Thereafter father as well as wife of the complainant reached the spot and rescued him (complainant) from the clutches of the accused, who ran away from the spot. The complainant was taken to Hospital at Haroli and matter was also reported to the police. Statement of complainant was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW7/C was recorded. During the course of investigation, spot map was prepared and blood stained Tshirt of the complainant as well as weapon of offence, ‘Danda’ were taken into possession vide recovery memos Ext. PW3/B and Ext. PW3/C. Dr. A.K. Sharma medically examined the complainant and issued MLC Ext. PW1/A and thereafter complainant was referred to R.H. Una for surgical opinion. At R.H. Una complainant was examined by Dr. Indu Bhardwaj who advised CT Scan for injuries suffered by him on his skull. Based on the report of CT Scan, Ext. PW2/A, Dr. Indu Bhardwaj found the injury suffered by the complainant to be dangerous to life. Accused Taro Devi and Chanchla Devi were arrested on 20.3.2008 and were subsequently released on bail on 31.3.2008. As accused Lekh Raj @ Laddi was a juvenile when the alleged incident took place, he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board Una and was dealt with under the Juvenile Justice Act. 3. Accused Taro Devi and Chanchla Devi were arrested on 20.3.2008 and were subsequently released on bail on 31.3.2008. As accused Lekh Raj @ Laddi was a juvenile when the alleged incident took place, he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board Una and was dealt with under the Juvenile Justice Act. 3. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed in the Court and as a prima facie case was found against the accused, they were charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case the prosecution, in all, examined 11 witnesses. Two witnesses were also examined by the defence. 5. Learned trial court after taking into consideration the entire evidence produced on record by the prosecution concluded that there were number of discrepancies, contradictions and doubtful circumstances in the case of the prosecution which went to the root of the case and create doubt in the story as was propounded by the prosecution. Learned trial court did not found the testimony of the complainant to be cogent and reliable. Recovery of Danda Ext. P2 was also held by the learned trial court to be doubtful. Learned trial court also took note of the fact that the complainant had stated that he had made a handwritten complaint to the police but the so-called complaint was never produced on record. It further took note of the fact that after the occurrence of alleged incident neither the complainant nor his family members reported the matter to the Panchayat Pradhan etc. and in fact police reached the hospital on the basis of information received by it from the hospital about there being an injury case received at the hospital. Learned trial court further held that even the testimony of the wife of complainant Smt. Urmila Devi who entered the witness box as PW4 was not reliable. It also did not found the testimony of the minor son of complainant, who entered the witness box as PW11 to be trustworthy. Learned trial court further held that even the testimony of the wife of complainant Smt. Urmila Devi who entered the witness box as PW4 was not reliable. It also did not found the testimony of the minor son of complainant, who entered the witness box as PW11 to be trustworthy. It was further held by learned trial court on the basis of testimonies of the doctors as well as medical reports on record that the Court has not only to see the nature of injury but also the intention and motive of the accused and whether the injury was in fact inflicted by the accused with an intention and motive to kill the injured or not. Learned trial court went to hold that the said ingredients were missing in this case and simply because of enmity or hostile relations between the parties being neighbourers it could not be presumed that there was intention and motive of the accused to kill the complainant. Accordingly, on these basis it was held by learned trial court that when no independent witness had supported the case of the prosecution and on the other hand defence had examined two witnesses who seemed to be independent and the possibility of the occurrence having taken place in the manner as was alleged by the accused could not be ruled out, then the prosecution could not be said to have had proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. On these basis, learned trial court acquitted the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. 6. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial court was not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the findings returned by learned trial court were based on hypothetical reasoning, surmises and conjectures. It was further submitted by Mr. Chauhan that learned trial court discarded the testimony of prosecution witnesses on account of untenable reasons without appreciating that the prosecution witnesses had proved the case of the prosecution on all material points. It was further argued by Mr. It was further submitted by Mr. Chauhan that learned trial court discarded the testimony of prosecution witnesses on account of untenable reasons without appreciating that the prosecution witnesses had proved the case of the prosecution on all material points. It was further argued by Mr. Chauhan that the conclusion arrived at by learned trial court to the effect that there were material discrepancies and contradictions in the case of the prosecution was also totally ill-founded, as the learned trial court had erred in not appreciating the testimony of the complainant in its correct perspective. Mr. Chauhan submitted that the testimony of Rakesh Kumar which was duly corroborated by doctor and other prosecution witnesses including the son of complainant proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. It was further argued by Mr. Chauhan that learned trial court had erred in holding that the wife of the complainant had made improvements in her statements without appreciating that no improvements had been made in her testimony by the said witness. According to Mr. Chauhan, learned trial court otherwise also erred in placing undue reliance on the statement of DWs without appreciating that the statement of defence witnesses was neither cogent nor reliable. On these basis it was argued by Mr. Chauhan that the judgment passed by learned trial court was not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly the same be set aside. He further argued that accused be convicted for commission of offence for which they were charged. 7. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents on the other hand argued that the judgment passed by learned trial court was neither perverse nor there was any infirmity in the findings returned by learned trial court while acquitting the respondents of the charges framed against them. It was submitted by Mr. Thakur that as the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the judgment of acquittal returned in their favour by learned trial court could not be faulted with. Mr. Thakur further argued that the evidence produced on record both ocular as well as documentary by the prosecution was totally unreliable and the same by no stretch of imagination proved the factum of accused having committed the offence for which they were charged. According to Mr. Mr. Thakur further argued that the evidence produced on record both ocular as well as documentary by the prosecution was totally unreliable and the same by no stretch of imagination proved the factum of accused having committed the offence for which they were charged. According to Mr. Thakur, accused were falsely implicated by the complainant and learned trial court on the basis of correct appreciation of the material on record produced by the prosecution acquitted them, as no case was actually made out against the accused. On these basis it was urged by Mr. Thakur that there was no merit in the appeal and the same be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as judgment passed by the learned trial court. 9. Before proceeding further we will refer to the testimony of material prosecution witnesses in order to appreciate the contention of both the parties. 10. Dr. A.K. Sharma entered the witness box as PW1 and deposed that in the month of February, 2008 he was posted as Medical Officer at CHC Haroli and on 20.2.2008 he had examined Rakesh Kumar (complainant) at around 10:30 p.m. and on examination of the complainant he had found the following injuries on his person:- 1. Clean lacerated wound on left side parietal 2 inches x 1;2 cmx bone deep, margins were irregular and bleeding was present. 2. Clean lacerated wound on left side frontal region skull 3inch x ½ cm x bone depth margins were irregular, bleeding was present.” He further deposed that he had advised x-ray of the skull and after receipt of x-ray report, the same showed no evidence of fracture and he referred the matter for surgical opinion to RH Una. This witness further deposed that injuries on the person of complainant were possible by danda blows. In his cross-examination he stated that according to x-ray report injuries on the person of complainant were simple in nature. He further stated in his cross-examination that injuries on the person of complainant were possible if a person strikes against a hard surface like pillar etc. 11. Dr. In his cross-examination he stated that according to x-ray report injuries on the person of complainant were simple in nature. He further stated in his cross-examination that injuries on the person of complainant were possible if a person strikes against a hard surface like pillar etc. 11. Dr. Satvir Singh Consultant Radiologist, Satluj CT Scan and Diagnostic Centre, Nangal entered the witness box as PW2 and deposed that he conducted CT Scan of the complainant Rakesh Kumar on 4.3.2008 and observed an epidural haematoma measuring 7 mm in depth in the left parietal region and there was also a fracture on the left parietal bone. This witness further deposed that epidural haematoma has a possibility of increasing and in case it increases it can be dangerous to life. In his cross examination this witness stated that duration of injuries cannot be exactly predicted but the injury in issue was a fresh injury and the injury detected was of less than one week. He also admitted in his cross examination that injuries in issue were possible if a person strikes with a hard surface. It is pertinent to point out at this stage that the alleged incident took place on 20.2.2008, whereas CT Scan of the complainant was conducted by PW2 on 4.3.2008, i.e. after a period of 12 days from the date of incident. 12. The complainant entered the witness box as PW3 and deposed that on 20.2.2008 at around 7:30 p.m. he was going to the market along with his son to bring medicine for his wife when accused attacked him with danda due to enmity. This witness further deposed that as a result thereof he sustained injuries on the head as well as other parts of his body. He further stated that his father and wife Urmila Devi came to the spot and saved him from the clutches of accused persons who thereafter ran away from the spot. He further deposed that thereafter he was taken to hospital by his father at Haroli. He further deposed that from there he was referred to RH Una where x-ray and CT Scan of the complainant were conducted and he remained admitted in the hospital for about 15-20 days. In the cross examination this witness admitted it to be correct that accused Taro Devi had complained against him at police station Haroli and he was called by the police. In the cross examination this witness admitted it to be correct that accused Taro Devi had complained against him at police station Haroli and he was called by the police. He also admitted it to be correct that a compromise was effected between him and accused Taro Devi on the said complaint in the presence of Panchayat Members in the police station. He also admitted it to be correct that his house was adjoining to the village path towards north and the house of accused was towards south in front of his house. He also admitted it to be correct that there were 5-7 houses near his house and boundary wall had been erected by the accused persons towards the side of his house about two years back. He also admitted it to be correct that there were pillars supporting the verandah which had been white washed. Complainant further stated that he was given 5-7 blows of danda on his head. He also stated that he was given beatings by dandas blows on his body including the knee. He stated that all the three persons were having danda in their hands. He was confronted with the statement Ext. PW3/A and supplementary statement mark DA in which it was not so recorded that all the persons were having danda in their hands and they were given beatings with the said danda on his head as well as other parts of his body. He further stated in his cross examination that he did not raise any hue and cry. He also stated that he did not see whether neighbourers had gathered there or not. He stated that he was semi conscious when he was taken to hospital. He further stated that police station Haroli was on the way to Haroli hospital 13. Urmila Devi wife of complainant entered the witness box as PW4 and she also corroborated the case of the prosecution. This witness stated that on 20.2.2008 at around 7:30 p.m. her husband had gone with her son to bring some medicine for her when at a little distance from their house accused attacked him with dandas. This witness further deposed that her son came to her and told her that accused persons were beating the complainant with dandas. This witness stated that on 20.2.2008 at around 7:30 p.m. her husband had gone with her son to bring some medicine for her when at a little distance from their house accused attacked him with dandas. This witness further deposed that her son came to her and told her that accused persons were beating the complainant with dandas. She further stated that on this she along with her father-in-law rushed to the spot and saw that the accused beating her husband with dandas. She further stated that they rescued her husband from the clutches of accused persons who ran away from the spot. She further deposed that thereafter her father-in-law took her husband to hospital Haroli. In her cross examination she stated that their house and the house of accused persons were opposite to each other and there was a Gali in between the two which was partly cemented and partly was paved with stones and mud. She further stated that her husband had raised cries ‘bachao-bachao’ and she and her father-in-law reached the complainant together. She further stated that when she reached the spot many persons from the locality had gathered there. She further stated that she was also hit with danda on her hips and had received injuries. She further stated that accused persons gave them beatings for about 5 minutes and thereafter they ran away. She stated that she had disclosed to the police that she was also beaten up by accused persons and had also received injuries while protecting her husband. She further stated that she told the police that her husband was beaten by all accused mercilessly with dandas. This witness was confronted with Mark DB wherein it was not so recorded. 14. PW5 Kishan Chand deposed that he was Ward Panch of Ward No.5 of Gram Panchayat Dharampur and was associated during the investigation of the case. This witness further deposed that police took into possession one danda Ext. P2 vide seizure memo Ext. PW3/C in his presence. In his cross-examination he stated that he was sitting in the house of Rakesh Kumar, who was inside the room and police brought the danda from outside. He further deposed that he cannot tell as to from where the police brought the danda. P2 vide seizure memo Ext. PW3/C in his presence. In his cross-examination he stated that he was sitting in the house of Rakesh Kumar, who was inside the room and police brought the danda from outside. He further deposed that he cannot tell as to from where the police brought the danda. He admitted it to be correct that Lekh Raj alias Laddi was not present there nor he produced weapon of offence in question in his presence nor Ladi signed seizure memo in his presence. 15. HHC Sansar Chand entered the witness box as PW6 and deposed that he was posted at police station Haroli for the last 2 ½ years and on 20.2.2008 a telephonic information was received from CHC Haroli that an injured person was admitted in the hospital on which he along with Constable Tirath Ram went to CHC Haroli and got the injured medically examined. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of injured, Rakesh Kumar, and also obtained MLC Ext. PW1/A. He further deposed that doctor advised x-ray and radiological opinion. He further stated that till that time no cognizable offence appeared to have been made out so he accordingly informed in the police station regarding which report was prepared. In his cross examination this witness stated that injured did not give him any written complaint. 16. HC Ramesh Chand entered the witness box as PW7 and deposed that on 20.2.2008 he was posted as MHC and was acting as SHO PS Haroli. He further deposed the factum of entering report No. 28 in daily diary and recording of FIR Ext. PW7/C on 18.3.2008 which was in his own hand. 17. ASI Bakhtawar Singh entered the witness box as PW8 and deposed that he was handed over the investigation of the case on 18.3.2008 after registration of FIR. He further stated that on 19.3.2008 he went on the spot and on identification of the complainant he inspected the spot and prepared the spot map. He also stated that accused Lekh Raj alias Laddi produced one danda in presence of Hans Raj and Kishan Chand which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW3/C. 18. SI Kapoor Chand entered the witness box as PW9 and stated that on 20.2.2008 information was received from CHC Haroli by MHC Ramesh Chand to the effect that an injured person had been admitted in the hospital. PW3/C. 18. SI Kapoor Chand entered the witness box as PW9 and stated that on 20.2.2008 information was received from CHC Haroli by MHC Ramesh Chand to the effect that an injured person had been admitted in the hospital. He further deposed that on receipt of this information HHC Sansar Chand and Constable Tirath Ram were sent to CHC Haroli who got the injured medically examined. He further stated that after the treatment of the injured final opinion of the doctor was obtained and on the basis of said final opinion FIR Ext. PW3/C was registered. In his cross examination this witness stated that he was not aware whether doctor had advised CT Scan of injured Rakesh Kumar or not. He further stated that he did not know that when doctor advised CT Scan in police cases then CT Scan was conducted at Dharamshala. He further stated that he did not collect the CT Scan report either from hospital or from Satluj CT Scan Centre, Nangal. 19. Dr. Indu Bhardwaj entered the witness box as PW10 and she stated that she was posted as Medical Officer in RH Una since March, 2006 and patient Rakesh Kumar was examined by her on 22.2.2008 as a referred case from CHC Haroli. This witness further stated that on examination it was found that patient had infected wound on his skull and was complaining of giddiness. She further deposed that head injury was suspected and the patient was advised CT Scan, however, due to shortage of money the patient could not get the CT Scan done immediately. She further deposed that complainant reported to her on 4.3.2008 with CT Scan and when she examined him she found that patient had a badly infected wound with swelling. She further stated that he had CT Scan with him which revealed fracture skull and head injury. She further deposed that complainant was admitted on 4.3.2008 and was discharged on 12.3.2008. She stated that she had given her final opinion on MLC Ext. PW1/A which was Ext. PW10/C. She further deposed that injuries observed by her were dangerous to life as there was a fracture in the skull. She further stated that she had seen danda and the injuries observed by her on the head of Rakesh Kumar can be caused by such danda. PW1/A which was Ext. PW10/C. She further deposed that injuries observed by her were dangerous to life as there was a fracture in the skull. She further stated that she had seen danda and the injuries observed by her on the head of Rakesh Kumar can be caused by such danda. In her cross examination though she denied CT Scan was done free of cost at Kangra, however self stated that government charges were nominal obtained from the patient. She stated that she had not admitted the patient on 22.2.2008, as he had left the hospital by saying that he had no money for CT Scan and also had no attendant with him. She admitted it to be correct that she did not hand over the in-patient record Ext. PW10/B to the police. She admitted it to be correct that injury could be caused if a person strikes against the edges of the rectangle pillar. She also stated that injuries were also possible if a person falls on irregular, rough stony surface. 20. Minor son of the complainant Mani Ram entered the witness box as PW11. He stated that on 20.2.2008 he and his father were going to bring medicine for his mother and at around 7:30 p.m. when they reached near the house of accused, accused started beating his father with dandas and they gave danda blows on the head of his father. This witness further deposed that on seeing this he ran away from the spot and told the entire incident to his mother and grand father and thereafter his mother and grandfather went to the spot. In his cross examination he stated that the shop of Dr. Deep was situated at a distance from their house and his dispensary was situated near road which falls in village Dharampur. He further stated that there were only two shops and other shop of daily needs owned by Gurmeet. He admitted it to be correct that Atta Chakki of Gurmeet was also there. He stated that at the time of occurrence of alleged incident the lights were on and it was not pitch dark. He further deposed that all three accused were having dandas with them in their hands. He stated that he could not tell how many danda blows were given to his father. He stated that there was a distance of 10 feet between him and his father. He further deposed that all three accused were having dandas with them in their hands. He stated that he could not tell how many danda blows were given to his father. He stated that there was a distance of 10 feet between him and his father. He stated that he did not raise noise but his father raised noise by saying ‘bachao-bachao’. He further stated that there were 10-12 persons who gathered from the Mohalla after the incident. He denied that he was deposing as directed by his parents. He stated that his mother was also slapped by Chanchla Devi. He further stated that this fact was told to him by his mother. 21. From the perusal of the testimony of prosecution witnesses there are some material factors which need to be highlighted. 22. Complainant in his testimony as PW3 has stated that when he was allegedly given beatings by the accused, he did not raise any hue and cry. PW11 Mani Ram son of the complainant has stated that when complainant was beaten up by the accused, his father raised noise by saying ‘bachao-bachao’. PW11 further stated that when accused were beating his father he immediately rushed to his house from the spot and told the entire incident to his mother and grandfather who immediately rushed back where his father was beaten. PW4 Urmila Devi wife of the complainant has stated that on the fateful day when her husband and her son had gone to purchase medicine for her, her son came to her and told her that accused were giving danda beatings to her husband with danda blows and on this she and her father-in-law rushed to the spot and rescued the complainant from the clutches of accused. Incidentally, Hans Raj father of the complainant has not been examined by the prosecution. It has come in the testimony of the complainant that when he was being beaten up by the accused with dandas he sustained injuries as a result of the same and he was saved from the clutches of the accused by his father and his wife. He further deposed that when his father and wife came to the spot accused persons ran away from the spot. He further deposed that when his father and wife came to the spot accused persons ran away from the spot. However, a perusal of the testimony of Urmila Devi demonstrates that she has stated that when she reached the spot along with her father-in-law in order to save her husband she was also beaten up by the accused with danda. This witness further deposed that in fact accused gave beatings to her also for about 5 minutes and thereafter they ran away. 23. As we have already discussed above the complainant has stated in his statement that when he was being beaten by the accused he did not raise any hue and cry, however, PW4 has stated that deceased was crying ‘bachao-bachao’. PW3 and PW4 in their cross examinations have been confronted with their statements made to the police wherein it was not so recorded that accused persons were having danda in their hands and they had given beating to him on his head and on other parts of his body. This demonstrates that besides there being inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the above mentioned prosecution witnesses, the said witnesses have also made improvements in their statements with the passage of time. The factum of PW4 having received injuries or her being beaten up by the accused is not corroborated by any material on record. Said contradictions, inconsistencies and improvements in their statements raise doubt over the reliability and trustworthiness of the testimonies of these witnesses. This is more so keeping in view the fact that PW3 happens to be the complainant and PW4 happens to be his wife. Similarly, PW11 is also the son of the complainant and as per his version, after the accused started beating the complainant he ran to his house where he narrated the said incident to his mother and grandfather and thereafter he did not come back to the spot. 24. Another important aspect of the matter is the mode and manner in which the weapon of offence, i.e. ‘danda’ has been recovered by the police. PW8 ASI Bakhtawar Singh has deposed that Lekh Raj alias Laddi produced the danda in presence of Hans Raj and Kishan Chand which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW3/C. A perusal of Ext. PW8 ASI Bakhtawar Singh has deposed that Lekh Raj alias Laddi produced the danda in presence of Hans Raj and Kishan Chand which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW3/C. A perusal of Ext. PW3/C demonstrates that it is mentioned therein that Lekh Raj produced the weapon of offence, i.e. the danda before the police with which he had caused injuries to the complainant. As per Ext. PW3/C the danda has been handed over by the accused to the police in the presence of Hans Raj and Kishan Chand. Whereas Hans Raj has not been examined by the prosecution, Kishan Chand who entered the witness box as PW5 has not corroborated the case of the prosecution. In his deposition this witness has stated that while he was sitting in the house of accused, police brought the danda from outside. He further stated that he could not tell from where police brought the danda and he admitted it to be correct that accused Lekh Raj was not present when the danda was brought by the police nor the accused was there in the room in which PW5 was sitting. He also stated that accused did not sign any seizure memo in his presence. The testimony of PW5 in fact shatters the entire case of the prosecution with regard to the alleged recovery of the danda in the mode and manner in which the prosecution wants us to believe. This casts a serious doubt over the truthfulness of the case of the prosecution and lends support to the contention of the accused that the accused have been falsely implicated in the case because of enmity. 25. Before proceeding further it is relevant to take note of the fact that defence has examined Ram Pal alias Bheema as DW1 and Smt. Asha Rani as DW2. 26. DW1 Ram Pal has stated that complainant and accused both are residents of his village and on 20.2.2008 at about 7:30- 7:45 p.m. he was coming from his fields and when he reached near the house of the parties he saw that Rakesh Kumar running out of the house of Taro and he also saw him falling down on the street. This witness stated that he went to the house of Taro Devi and asked her as to what had happened to which Taro Devi informed that Rakesh Kumar was trying to misbehave with her daughter with an intention to outrage her modesty. This witness further deposed that he advised Taro Devi to inform the Pardhan and thereafter he left to his house. In his cross examination this witness stated that he had not disclosed this fact earlier to anyone. He also denied the fact that he was deposing falsely in favour of the accused and he self stated that both the parties were related to him. 27. Asha Rani entered the witness box as DW2 and deposed that she was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Dharampur since 2001 and complainant and accused were residents of her village and she had seen their houses. This witness further deposed that their houses are situated near to each other separated by street. She further deposed that on 20.2.2008 she was at her home and received a telephonic call from Chanchla Devi at about 8:00 p.m. who called her to her home and stated that Rakesh Kumar had entered into their house and was abusing them and then she went to the house of Up-Pardhan so that he may accompanied her. This witness further deposed that in the meantime Chanchlo reached there barefooted without having Dupatta and told that Rakesh Kumar had grappled her. She further stated that Chanchla was nervous and they offered her water. This witness further deposed that thereafter they visited the house of Chanchla Devi along with Up-Pardhan Shankar Dass and saw that articles like pitchers etc. lying scattered in the house of Taro Devi. This witness further deposed that thereafter they went to the house of Rakesh Kumar and snubbed him as to why he had gone to the house of Taro Devi under the influence of liquor. She further stated that at the relevant time family members of Rakesh Kumar, i.e. wife, father and mother were also there. Father of the complainant stated that since Rakesh Kumar was under the influence of liquor they will talk in the next day. She further stated that in the morning none came to them. This witness further deposed that complainant was a quarrelsome person who was in the habit of taking quarrels while drunk. Father of the complainant stated that since Rakesh Kumar was under the influence of liquor they will talk in the next day. She further stated that in the morning none came to them. This witness further deposed that complainant was a quarrelsome person who was in the habit of taking quarrels while drunk. She also stated that Taro Devi had already got a case registered against him which was subsequently compromised by the parties and copy of the compromise was placed on record as Ext. DW2/A. She further stated that said compromise was signed by her, Up Pardhan Shankar Dass and father and brother of Rakesh Kumar. In her cross examination this witness stated that compromise had taken place in police station, Haroli. She also stated that with regard to compromise a written complaint had been made by Taro Devi to the police. She feigned her ignorance to the effect as to whether the complainant had remained admitted in hospital or not. A perusal of the cross examination of this witness demonstrates that except the general suggestion that this witness was deposing falsely there are no specific suggestion or question put to this witness to the effect that on 20.2.2008 events did not take place as she had narrated and Chanchla Devi never visited her nor thereafter she went to the house of Rakesh Kumar. Not only this, the testimony of DW2 who otherwise is an independent witness is cogent, reliable and trustworthy. In the cross examination of this witness, the prosecution could not impinge the credibility of the said witness. 28. Therefore, in our considered view whereas on the one hand on the basis of evidence produced on record by the prosecution it cannot be said beyond reasonable doubt that in fact Rakesh Kumar was beaten up with danda blows by the accused in the mode and manner as has been put forth by the prosecution, on the other hand the deposition of DW2 seems to give credence to the contention of the accused that in fact Rakesh Kumar in drunken condition had entered her house and tried to molest her daughter and had hurt himself by falling down. 29. Now we will deal with the testimony of the doctors who have examined the complainant. It is an admitted case of the parties that the alleged incident took place on 20.2.2008 and the complaint was lodged on 18.3.2008. 29. Now we will deal with the testimony of the doctors who have examined the complainant. It is an admitted case of the parties that the alleged incident took place on 20.2.2008 and the complaint was lodged on 18.3.2008. It is also a matter of record that after the alleged incident, the complainant did not report the matter either to Panchayat etc. or to the police. Police reached CHC Haroli on the basis of telephonic information received in this regard from CHC Haroli. At CHC Haroli the complainant was examined by Dr. A. K. Sharma who entered the witness box as PW1. This witness in his testimony has stated that he after examining the complainant advised x-ray and after receipt of x-ray report which showed no evidence of fracture he referred the matter to surgical opinion to RH Una. He further deposed that injuries on the body of injured were simple in nature and these injuries were possible by danda blows. In cross examination this witness deposed that injuries were possible if a person strikes against a hard surface like pillar etc. It is also borne out from the records of the case that the CT Scan of the complainant was done by PW2-Dr. Satvir Singh, Consultant Radiologist Satluj, CT Scan and Diagnostic Centre, Nangal. Dr. Satvir Singh entered the witness box as PW2 and deposed that he had conducted the CT Scan of Rakesh Kumar on 4.3.2008 and observed an epidural haematoma in the left parietal region and there was also fracture seen on the left parietal bone. Though this witness stated that epidural haematoma has a possibility of increasing and in case it increases it can be dangerous to life but he also stated that though duration of injury could not exactly be predicted but it was a fresh injury and the injury detected was less than of one week. Keeping in view the fact that the incident had taken place on 20.2.2008 and as per PW2 the injury which was found in CT Scan conducted on 4.3.2008 was not more than one week old, this inference cannot be drawn that the injury which was detected in the CT Scan was the one which the complainant allegedly suffered on 20.2.2008. 30. Now when we come to the testimony of PW10, Dr. 30. Now when we come to the testimony of PW10, Dr. Indu Bhardwaj, it has come in her statement that the complainant was examined by her initially on 22.2.2008 as a referred case from CHC Haroli. This witness further stated that she had advised the complainant CT Scan but due to shortage of money he did not get the said CT Scan done immediately. This witness further deposed that thereafter Rakesh Kumar reported to her on 4.3.2008 with CT Scan which was conducted by Dr. Satvir Singh, PW2, and he (Rakesh Kumar) was admitted on the same very day, i.e. 4.3.2008. Ext. PW1/A is the MLC of the complainant on which final opinion of PW10 was dated 18.3.2008 to the effect that injury suffered by the complainant was dangerous to life. In her cross examination this witness stated that the complainant was not operated upon but he was kept on conservative treatment. She also admitted it to be correct that she did not hand over in-patient record, Ext. PW10/B, to the police. She also admitted it to be correct that injuries observed on Rakesh Kumar can be caused if a person strikes against the edges of the rectangle pillar. She also admitted it to be correct that such injuries are possible if a person falls on irregular, rough stony surface. 31. As we have already discussed above, the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that on the fateful day the complainant was actually given danda blows by the accused. It has come in the testimony of Dr. Satvir Singh, PW2, that the injury which was found in CT Scan was not more than one week old as from the date when the CT Scan was done. CT Scan was done on 4.3.2008. Alleged incident took place on 20.2.2008. The final medical opinion given by PW10, Dr. Indu Bhardwaj is also based on the said CT Scan which was dated 4.3.2008. In our considered view, the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the injury which was reflected in the CT Scan was done on 4.3.2008 was in fact the same which was allegedly received by the complainant on 20.2.2008. Indu Bhardwaj is also based on the said CT Scan which was dated 4.3.2008. In our considered view, the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the injury which was reflected in the CT Scan was done on 4.3.2008 was in fact the same which was allegedly received by the complainant on 20.2.2008. Our conclusion is strengthened by the fact that PW2 has stated that injury discovered in CT Scan conducted on 4.3.2008 was a fresh injury and was of less than one week, whereas the alleged incident had taken place about 13 days before the CT Scan was done. Therefore, on the basis of the discussion held above, in our considered view it cannot be said that the prosecution was able to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 32. We have gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial court and a perusal of the same demonstrates that the entire evidence on record produced by the prosecution has been gone into by the learned trial court and after appreciation of the same learned trial court has returned the findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. We have also independently assessed the material on record produced by the prosecution and in our considered view also, the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, while concurring with the judgment passed by the learned trial court vide which the accused have been acquitted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, we dismiss the present appeal being devoid of merit.