STATE OF H.P. Vs. PREM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE trial court acquitted the respondent for the offence under Sections 451,323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, which has been assailed in this appeal, on the ground that the learned trial court brushed aside the evidence of the injured without any cogent reasons.

(2.) I have heard Shri V.K.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General for the State-appellant and Shri N.K. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through and re- apprised the evidence of the prosecution.

(3.) THE notice of accusation under the aforesaid sections was put to the respondent. He did not plead guilty and claimed trial. After the prosecution examined the witnesses, the respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, however, no defence was led. The learned trial court on the appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution found that PWs 2 to 4 were closely related to the complainant. There has been a criminal case against the complaint, at the instance of the respondent. The complainant did not depose, in what manner she was given beatings. In the court, when examined, she did not state that the respondent had entered in the courtyard under the influence of liquor, as disclosed by her in the FIR. Similarly Shakuntla Devi (PW2) did not state the manner in which the respondent had given beatings to the complainant and her Bua Amravati. Even she has added further which was not even the case of the complainant that complainant got injury on her teeth and one tooth was broken which was lying on the spot and the broken tooth was also handed over to the Doctor. This shows her anxiety and interestedness to implicate the respondent leaving no room for his escape. The trial court on critical examination of the prosecution evidence had also noticed that the place of incident, as alleged by the complainant was different from the place of incident as shown in the site plan Ext.PW4/A and the statement made by Amravati (PW3) is an exaggerated version worth rejecting and the Doctor did not rule out the possibility of the injuries on the person of the injured by a fall. Thus, in view of the contradictory evidence, the trial court did not rely upon the prosecution evidence at all and acquitted the respondent by giving him the benefit of a reasonable doubt.