State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kushal Kumar

attacked the alleged accused persons firstly and in that regard, accused Jai Dei has lodged a complaint with the police. As per cross examination of investigating officer, PW-2 Inspector Raghubir Singh, who has admitted that accused Jai Dei had lodged a complaint Ex. D-1 in Police Station. As per the defence, the complainant party has falsely been implicated the accused persons in the present case as a counter case. As per version of defence, as noted above, the occurrence took place on 5

2.7.1993 and the police was informed on 3.7.1993. Such delay was not explained by the prosecution. As noted by the trial court, the defence has argued that in the FIR, there was name of only accused Jai Dei, whereas, names of other accused persons were missing and the FIR reveals that one Ashok, son of Jai Dei was also present on the spot and he had also given beatings to the complainant, whereas, in fact there was no son of accused Jai Dei nor any Ashok Kumar was impleaded as accused in the case. According to the defence, Jai Dei was beaten by the complainant and she had sustained injuries. As noted by the trial court, the defence had argued that only interested witnesses were examined, who were from the same community to which the complainant belongs. As per FIR, Des Raj was also witness of the occurrence, but was not deliberately examined by the prosecution. It has also been noted by the trial court that there appears to be scuffle between the parties whereby the injuries were sustained by the complainant and his wife.

It appears that the prosecution witnesses have consistently deposed that Jai Dei had given blow on the finger of Sudershna Devi, wife of the complainant. Sudershna Devi has categorically stated that accused Jai Dei was having danda in her hands who applied the same and consequent upon, the injury was 6 inflicted in her finger. The inflicting of injury by Jai Dei was found to have been corroborating by other independent witness Tulsi Ram and Wazir Chand. Therefore, on the analysis of the prosecution witnesses and the material on record, Jai Dei was found to have committed the offence which was proved on record and she was convicted till rising of the court. The prosecution witnesses have stated that the alleged accused started beating and when Sudershna Dei went to the spot, it was accused Jai Dei, who gave her danda blow. As such the saying of prosecution witnesses qua the alleged beating to Sansar Chand and Sudershna Devi is a general statement.

There is no specific evidence as to how and in what manner the accused persons gave beatings to him and his wife. Therefore, general statement and allegations of beatings, by the complaint against the accused are not sufficient to convict the alleged accused. The injuries on the body of complainant and his wife also could not be corroborated and the prosecution was not successful to show the link of evidence that injuries were inflicted by the accused. The occurrence is said to have taken place at 6.00 p.m. and the distance of Police Station as per FIR is about 10 Kms. Immediately, the FIR was not lodged and the same was got registered at a later stage. I find that, for lack of 7 corroboration of role and the injuries found to have been inflicted on the body of the complainant and from lack of proper evidence, the alleged accused persons have rightly been given benefit of doubt, whereas Jai Dei has been convicted by awarding simple imprisonment till rising of the court. After going through the material and evidence on record, I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. July 17, 2009(K) ( R.B.Misra ), J.