STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. YASHPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-State being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. VII, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in Police Challan No. 26/2 of 1312, whereby learned Court below on the basis of evidence led on record by prosecution, held the respondent-accused (hereinafter, 'accused') not guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 325 IPC and acquitted him, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein conviction of respondent-accused, after setting aside impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the court below.

(2.) Facts as emerge from the record are that complainant namely Ghanshyam vide exhibit PW-1/A got his statement recorded under Section 154 CrPC, on the basis of which formal FIR exhibit PW-10/A came to be registered on 7.4.2016, at Police Station Dhalli, alleging therein that on 29.8.2012, at about 3.30 pm, near Jaghedi Suni, complainant Ghanshyam, his wife and one Yashodha were working under MGNAREGA Scheme on a road, whereupon, accused came there, stopped them from working and started abusing them. Further, the accused slapped Yashodha and kicked Kaushalya, due to which she became unconscious, fell on the road and received injuries. Complainant called one Babu Ram and injured were taken to Ghanahatti dispensary for treatment in the car of one Daleep, being driven by one Tej Ram, from where injured were referred to DDU Hospital Shimla. Complainant, his wife and Yashodha were medically examined. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR detailed herein above, came to be lodged against accused and after completion of investigation, police presented Challan in the competent Court of law, which being satisfied that prima facie</i> case exists against accused, charged him for having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 325 IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, fact remains that he did not lead any evidence in his defence despite sufficient opportunity. Learned trial Court, on the basis of material adduced on record by the prosecution, acquitted the accused of the charges framed against him under Sections 341, 323 and 325 IPC. In the aforesaid background, appellant-State approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein for conviction of respondent-accused for having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 325 IPC.

(3.) Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by learned Court below is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same is not based upon proper appreciation of evidence and as such, same deserves to be quashed and set aside. While inviting attention of this Court to the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below, Mr. Thakur, strenuously argued that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate evidence in its right perspective as a consequence of which, erroneous findings have come on record and accused has been let off on flimsy grounds. While making this Court to travel through the statements having been made by material prosecution witnesses, Mr. Thakur made a serious attempt to persuade this Court to agree with his contention that prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of alleged incident, accused gave beatings to the wife of the complainant and another person namely Yashodha, as a result of which they suffered grievous injuries. While referring to the medical evidence led on record, exhibits PW-7/A, PW7/B, PW-9/A and PW-9/C and statements having been made by PW-5 Dr. Ankur Gupta, PW-7 Dr. Tarun Shastri and PW-9 Dr. Ravinder Mokta, Mr. Thakur contended that it stands duly proved on record that on account of injuries inflicted on account of beatings given by the respondent-accused, victims suffered simple as well as grievous injuries, as such, there was no scope left for the court below to acquit the accused of the charges framed against him. Lastly, Mr. Thakur, contended that the learned Court below has wrongly drawn adverse inference against the complainant for delay in lodging FIR, whereas, as per record, complainants, who were daily wage workers, on the very first opportunity lodged FIR against the accused.