STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Barsar in Criminal Case No.38-1-95/130-11- 97/109-11-1998 decided on 29th May, 1999 whereby he has acquitted the accused of the alleged offence committed by him under Sections 323, 325 IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19th June, 1995 complainant Bimla Devi was sitting in her house when her husband Bihari Lal had gone to the fields. She heard some commotion from the side of the fields and when she reached the place of occurrence she saw that Amar Nath was beating up her husband. Thereafter, she, along with Purshotam (PW-2) and Rikhi Ram, rescued her husband. When she rescued her husband, the accused asked her why she had come to the spot. She told the accused that she had come to rescue her husband. Upon this, the accused picked a stone and threw it at her and caused injury on her left ear. The ear started bleeding. Thereafter Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? she became unconscious and was taken to the Hospital by Purshotam and Rikhi Ram.

(3.) THE complainant Bimla Devi appeared as PW-1 and supported the case of the prosecution and, therefore, it is not necessary to repeat her entire statement. However, it is not very clear from her statement whether her husband Bihari Lal was present when she was hit by the stone or not. PW-2 is Purshotam. He does support the prosecution insofar as it relates to the throwing of stone is concerned. He, however, has not uttered even a word that any altercation between the complainant and accused took place. He states that Amar Nath threw a stone which hit the complainant. This witness is the first cousin of Bihari Lal, husband of the complainant. As per the complainant, it was Purshotam (PW-2) and Rikhi Ram who took her to the Hospital but this witness states that it was Bihari Lal and he who took her to Hospital. Though this witness is closely related, his statement was never recorded by the Police and his presence on the spot is doubtful. Rikhi Ram was not examined by the prosecution. Similarly, Bihari Lal was not cross examined by the prosecution. These were two important witnesses who could have shed some light on the incident.