CR.A/243/2002 of STATE Vs NIRMAL SINGH on 29 December 2008

Criminal Appeal No.243 of 2002

Date of decision: 29.12.2008

State of H.P

Vs

…Petitioner

Nirmal Sinh ….Resondent gp

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?[1] No

For the Petitioner:/State. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General For the Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Negi vice counsel for the respondent. ________________________________________________________

Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral):

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur dated 26.7.2001 whereby he has acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 341,354,504 and 506 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Vidya Devi made a complaint to the police (Ext.PW5/A) on 31.7.1998 at 9.15 a.m.. In this complaint she stated that on 30.7.1998 at about 7.p.m. when she was taking her cattle home, the accused stopped her on the way and told that she was sitting on his land. He abused her and caught her by her arm. He also caught hold of her plait and resultantly she fell down on the ground. When she tried to get up, the accused caught hold of her shirt from the collar and slapped her on 1Whether the reports of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?. Yes.

her face. He also tore her shirt and gave her fist and kick blows and pressed her breasts. She objected to the same and raised a hue and cry and then her husband Chhotu Ram, Balbir Singh S/o Ram Lal and Kewal Singh S/o Tarsem came to the spot and saved her from the accused. On the basis of this complaint FIR Ex.PW-4/A was lodged. Investigation was conducted and thereafter challan was filed against the accused.

3. The accused appeared before the trial court and claimed that he was innocent. He has been acquitted. Hence, the present appeal.

4. The complainant Vidya Devi was examined as PW1. She has reiterated the version given in the complaint. She has admitted in cross examination that the forest officers had come on the spot to evict her and other villagers from the forest land which they had encroached upon. According to her it was believed by every body that it was the accused who had complained to the forest officials

5. PW3 Shri Balbir Singh has stated that on 30.7.1998 he was coming back after getting the water and the complainant was returning home with the cattle. Then the accused had beaten Vidya Devi. He had caught hold of her and had also pressed her breasts. However, in cross examination this witness took a totally a different stand. According to him the occurrence had taken place in the winter season whereas in examination in chief he stated that the occurrence took place on 30.7.1998. According to him it was already dark and he was at the distance of 10 -15 yards. In cross examination he states that in his presence the accused has not beaten the complainant. In view of these contradictions in the statement of Balbir Singh no reliance can be placed on the same.

6. PW2 Shri Hussan Lal is the witness to the recovery of the shirt. He has turned hostile.

7. PW Chhottu Ram was also examined in court. He has wrongly been shown as PW2. He is the husband of the complainant. He states that he heard the cries of his wife and saw that the accused had caught hold her. The accused ran away as soon as he saw this witness . In cross examination he admits that Balbir Singh is his wife’s real nephew. On the other hand Balbir Singh has denied the suggestions that the complainant is his Aunt( mausi). This witness also admits that the accused had lodged a complaint against them with the forest officials.

8. In the background of this case where admittedly there was enmity between the two sides and the complainant party admitted that the relations between them and the accused were not cordial due to the fact that the accused had lodged a complaint against them before the forest officials, it was necessary that some independent witnesses should have been joined the investigation. What to talk about the independent witnesses, even Balbir Singh who is the real nephew of the complainant has not supported her case. Accordingly to the complaint she was beaten up for about 15 minutes and accused gave her kick and fist blows. She also alleges that she fell down on the ground and even thereafter she was beaten up. There is not even a single injury on her person. She herself stated that she did not want to be medically examined since she has no injuries. This clearly shows that the case set up by the complainant was a false one and the trial court rightly acquitted the accused.

In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged.

December 29[th] , 2008 (Rita).

( Deepak Gupta), J.