Acquittal upheld in appeal where prosecution evidence lacks consistency, eye-witnesses resile, medical opinions contradict on injury nature, and investigation shows material lapses.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant criminal appeal, lays challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 16.9.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-7, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in police Challan No. 29-2 of 2014, whereby learned trail Court acquitted the accused for having committed offenses punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC.

2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that on 20.6.2014, complainant-Dalpat Ram (PW1) was sitting in a tent set up for the marriage of son of his staff member, along with Devi Singh, Chet Ram, Hukmi Ram and Jeet Ram and they all were talking to each other, at about 10:00pm, accused asked the complainant not to give lectures. Complainant said that he is talking to others not you. Accused suddenly got up and gave fist blows with his right fist on the teeth and forehead of complainant. Persons sitting with the complainant intervened and asked the accused that why he is beating the complainant, whereafter accused ran away from the spot. Complainant telephonically informed his son Jyoti Prakash (PW2) about the incident, who visited the police station and informed about the occurrence upon which, Rapat was also entered in General Station diary. Police official ASI Ashok Kumar and Constable Hem Prakash left to the spot of occurrence along with PW2 Jyoti Prakash. Complainant met the police officials at Village Karyali, from where he was taken to CHC Jalog for medical examination. PW11 Dr. Kapil, conducted the medical of the complainant and issued MLC Ext.PW11/A, thereby opining that injuries suffered by the complainant are simple in nature.

3. After completion of necessary codal formalities, police conducted investigation and thereafter, presented challan in the competent court of law, which on being satisfied that prima facie case exists against the accused, put notice of accusation to him for having committed offences under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as eleven witnesses, whereas accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, pleaded his innocence and claimed that he has been falsely implicated.

4. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence collected on record by the prosecution held the accused not guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of IPC and accordingly, discharged him. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court, appellant-State has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein conviction of the respondent-accused after setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by the court below.

5. Precisely, the grouse of the appellant/State as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr.Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, is that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective. While referring to the statements of prosecution witnesses, Mr. Kahol submitted that though prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of incident, accused gave fist blows on the teeth and head of the accused, as a result of which, his one tooth was dislocated, but yet learned trial Court on very flimsy grounds, proceeded to acquit the accused.

6. To the contrary, Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the respondent-accused, supported the impugned judgment and contended that learned trial Court has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously and there is