The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and when two views are reasonably possible from the same evidence, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

The present appeal is maintained by the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of acquittal of the accused in a case under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, District Kullu, dated 25.2.2008, in Criminal Case No.2-I/2005/162-II/2007.

2. Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 10.9.2004, at about 7:00 am, at village Oshan, Tehsil and District Kullu, complainant Nup Ram (PW-1) and Kirat Ram (PW-3) had gone to pluck walnut from tree, in the meantime, accused Bhagat Ram (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) came to the spot and claimed half walnut being co-sharer and claimed that the walnut tree was in joint ownership. Complainant (PW-1) refused to give walnut to the accused, consequently, the accused gave ‘danda’ blow on the face of the complainant. As a result of which, one tooth of the complainant was broken and he sustained injury, thereafter accused went away. Thereafter, complainant (PW-1) reported the matter to the police. Medical examination of the complainant was conducted and FIR was registered. During investigation, police took into possession the ‘danda’ with which accused had hit the complainant. Investigating Officer visited the spot and prepared site plan.

3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as eight witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C, wherein he has denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. No defence evidence was led by the accused.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General while appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the accused has committed heinous crime in a broad day light and the prosecution though proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, but the learned Court below has committed an error in acquitting the accused. He has further argued that the accused may be convicted after setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has argued that the accused is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant due to family dispute, which dispute was related to the walnut tree. He has further argued that no recovery was effected and the alleged ‘danda’ to be used was not recovered at all neither the injuries to the person of the injured can be said to be caused by the accused and he is falsely implicated in the present case.

6. To appreciate the arguments of learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for the accused, this Court has gone through the record in detail and minutely scrutinized the statements of the witnesses.

7. PW-1 Nup Ram has deposed that on 10.9.2004 at about 7:00 am, when he alongwith Kirat Ram (PW-3) was about to pluck walnut, accused came there and demanded half of the walnut, when he refused to give him half of the walnut, accused gave him a ‘dada’ blow on his face, as a result of which, his tooth was broken and he also sustained injuries on his arm and wrist. Thereafter, he reported the matter to the police. He has further deposed that his medical examination was got conducted by the police. He has deposed that during investigating, accused has produced ‘danda’ Ex.P-1 before the police, which was taken into possession, vide recovery memo Ex.PW1/B. PW-2 Kewal Ram, father of the complainant also deposed this fact that accused have demanded half of walnut, when his son refused to do so, accused had given him a ‘danda’ blow on his face, as a result of which, one tooth of his son was broken. PW-3 Jagat Ram alias Kirat Ram, who was called by the father of the complainant to pluck the walnut, has deposed that in his presence accused had picked up a quarrel with the complainant and gave ‘danda’ blow to the complainant (PW-1), as a result of which, Nup Ram (PW-1) sustained injury. He has deposed that police has visited the spot and ‘danda’ Ex.P-1 was t