STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. CHHOTU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 26.4.1997, at about 5.00 a.m., at village Dugan, respondent Chhotu Ram was allegedly having caused grievous hurt to complainant Sukh Ram. Thus the matter was reported to the police vide Ext.PW6/B, on the basis of which FIR Ext.PW5/A was registered. After the medical examination of the respondent, the challan was put in the court, which was registered as Case No.270/1 of 1997, under Sections 325, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. After completing the trial, on 30.12.1999 a detailed judgment was passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The respondent was acquitted on the ground, firstly that the Roznamcha rapat Ext.PW6/B does not find mention about the fracture of the finger caused to the complainant by infliction of the stone blow given by the respondent. Secondly, the names of the alleged eye witnesses have not been mentioned in the First Information Report. Thirdly, there was sharp contradiction between the statements of complainant PW2 Sukh Ram and rapat roznamcha Ext.PW6/B, regarding date, time and place and the fact that he was rescued by S/Shri Jagdish Chand and Sarwan, who were incidentally present on the spot. Fourthly, the statement of the complainant before the court was improved on material particulars. The complainant has stated as PW2 that there was a case instituted against the respondent in Bilaspur, which was dismissed. Therefore, enmity between him and the respondent could not be ruled out, thus giving chance of concoction and exaggeration. Fifthly, the alleged eye witness Sarwan Kumar (PW3) and Jagdish Chand (PW4) appeared to have introduced by the complainant at the later stage, their interestedness could not be ruled out easily

(2.) LASTLY , the certified copy of the challan Ext.DA, copy of the FIR Ext. DB, copy of the MLC Exts. DC and DD has shown that a criminal case was filed regarding the same incident by the respondents against the complainant which is pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. Therefore, in view of these circumstances, the conviction of the respondent could not be sustained, accordingly the trial court acquitted the respondent.