STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant criminal appeal filed under section 378 CrPC, 1973 is directed against impugned judgment of acquittal dated 8.5.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Court No.3, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Case No. 79-II-07, whereby respondent-accused, came to be acquitted of the charges framed against him under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts as emerge from record are that complainant namely Taro Devi, PW-3, got her statement recorded under section 154 CrPC, 1973 Ext. PW-5/A, on the basis of which, formal FIR No. 190/07 dated 4.6.2007, came to be registered, alleging therein that on 22.4.2007, at around 2.50 pm, at Village Jhalera, District Una, accused gave beatings to her as well as PW-4 Raj Kumar, by way of fist blows, as a result of which Taro Devi PW-3 sustained injuries on her face, which were termed to be simple as well as grievous in nature, vide MLC Ext. PW-2/A and PW-1/A. After completion of investigation, police presented Challan in the competent Court of law. Learned trial Court, being satisfied that prima facie case exists against respondent-accused, framed charges under aforesaid sections, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Statement of accused was recorded under section 313 CrPC, 1973 wherein he denied the case of the prosecution in toto, however, the fact remains that he did not lead any evidence in his defence. Learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 8.5.2009, acquitted the accused of the charges framed against him. In the aforesaid background, respondent State being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, court No.3, Una, has approached this Court, by way of instant proceeding praying therein for conviction of accused, after setting aside judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below.

(3.) Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the Court below, vehemently argued that same is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution. Mr. Chauhan, while inviting attention of this Court to impugned judgment contended that bare perusal of same suggests that the learned Court below has not appreciated the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution in its right perspective, as a result of which erroneous findings have come on record and accused has been let off on very flimsy grounds. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid arguments, Mr. Chauhan, made this Court to travel through evidence led on record by prosecution to suggest that all the material prosecution witnesses categorically deposed before the Court below that the victims namely Taro Devi PW-3 and Raj Kumar, PW-4, were given beatings by the accused and in this incident, PW-3 Taro Devi sustained simple as well as grievous injuries. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Chauhan, contended that since case was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, there was no occasion for the learned Court below to acquit the accused, by extending benefit of doubt.