In appeals against acquittal, interference warranted only if perverse or no reasonable acquittal view possible; strained relations, contradictions, undisclosed prior injury justify upholding acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.03.2014, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant, Shakuntla Devi (PW-2), is the mother-in-law, and Prakash Chand (PW-3), is the father-in-law of the accused Nisha. They were residing together. Prakash Chand told the accused on 17.10.2010, at about 6:30 am, that the gas stove in the kitchen was left on. The accused replied that she had not left it on, and she was being blamed for everything. She pushed the informant, Shakutla Devi, who sustained injury on her already fractured right arm. Shakutla Devi went to the police station and reported the matter to the police. An entry No. 6(A) (Mark D) was recorded. Dr Ramesh Chand (PW-4) examined Shakuntla Devi and found blunt injury on the right shoulder and right forearm. He advised an X-ray. Dr Kalpana Mahajan (PW-1) conducted an X-ray and found a fracture of the head of humorous bone on the right side. She issued the report (Ext. PW1/A). Dr Ramesh Chand (PW-4) issued an MLC (Ext. PW4/A) stating that the nature of the injury was grievous, which could have been caused by pushing a person. An entry No. 24(A) was recorded after receiving the medical opinion, and FIR (Ext. PW5/E) was registered in the police station. ASI Gian Chand (PW-5) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext. PW5/A). He recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their version. The challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court after the completion of the investigation.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, she was charged with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove its case. Dr Kalpana Mahajan (PW-1) is the Radiologist who went through the X-ray. Shakuntla Devi (PW2) is the informant. Prakash Chand (PW3) is an eyewitness. Dr Ramesh Chand (PW4) examined Shakuntla Devi. ASI Gian Chand (PW5) investigated the matter. Constable Manjeet Singh (PW-6) has not entered the report Nos. 24(A) and 6(A). Sumna Kumari (PW-7) was Pradhan to whom the matter was reported.

5. The accused, in her statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution's case in its entirety. She stated that the witnesses were relatives of the complainant. She claimed that she was innocent and was falsely implicated. However, she did not produce any evidence in her defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the relationship between the parties was strained and the testimonies of the informant and her husband were required to be seen with due care and caution. They contradicted each other on material aspects. They admitted that the informant had already sustained a fracture in her arm. Therefore, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused.

7. B