STATE OF H.P. Vs. BITTU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE is aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Magistrate, whereby appellants Bittu and Raj Kumar (hereinafter called "accused") have been acquitted of the charge, under Sections 323, 325 and 506(I) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for which they were tried on police report.

(2.) PW -1 Veena Devi lodged a report with the police on 2.8.1997 at 8 PM that that very evening around 7.30 PM when she alongwith her husband Sanjeev Kumar (PW2), was present in the bazaar at Subathu, where she had gone to buy some merchandise, the respondents assaulted her and her husband and hit them with Dandas, belt and also dealt fist blows. PW-1 Veena Devi and her husband Sanjeev Kumar (PW-2) were got medically examined on the next following day. Various injuries were found on their person. Sanjeev Kumar (PW2) was also found to have sustained fracture of his right shoulder. Case was registered at Police Station, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Dharampur, after it was confirmed that one of the injuries was grievous.

(3.) TRIAL Court has acquitted the respondents holding that no independent witness has supported the story of the two injured, namely PW-1 Veena Devi and PW-2 Sanjeev Kumar and that the only witness, who has supported their version namely PW-10 Ramesh Kumar, is real brother of PW-1 Veena Devi and he is not named as a witness in the FIR, but was introduced later on. It has also been observed that the possibility of the injured having sustained the injuries as a result of fall cannot be ruled out, particularly when the doctor, namely PW-4 Ashok Tagra, has admitted in the cross-examination that the injuries found on the person of PW-1 Veena Devi and PW-2 Sanjeev Kumar could have been sustained as a result of fall.