Appellate courts interfere with acquittal only if patently perverse or ignoring material evidence; trial court's reasonable view, considering double presumption of innocence, not disturbed despite contradictions and enmity.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.12.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “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 against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 323 & 504 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant, Bali Ram (PW1), was sitting outside his house on a chair on 19.7.2010 at 8:00 P.M. The accused Om Raj started abusing him without any reason. The informant requested the accused not to abuse him, but the accused caught hold of the informant by the neck and gave him beatings. The informant sustained injuries to his foot. Two buttons of his shirt were torn. He shouted for help. Rajinder Kumar (PW5) and Brijesh Kumar (PW2) rescued the informant from the accused. The informant called the police, and an entry No.77(A) was recorded in the daily diary. HC Dev Dutt (PW6) and HHC Ravi Kumar (not examined) went to the spot for verification. Bali Ram (PW1) made a statement (Ex. PW1/A) which was sent to the police station where F.I.R (Ex.PW6/A) was registered. HC Dev Dutt investigated the matter. He prepared a site plan (Ex. PW6/C). The informant produced a shirt which was put in a cloth parcel, and the parcel was sealed with three impressions of seal ‘A’. The parcel was seized vide memo (Ex. PW1/B). Seal impression (Ex. PW6/D) was taken on a separate piece of cloth, and the seal was handed over to Sanjay after its use. An application (Ex. PW3/A) was filed for conducting the medical examination of informant Bali Ram. Dr. Manjeet Singh (PW3) conducted the informant’s medical examination and found that he had sustained multiple injuries, which could have been caused by kicks and fist blows. He issued MLC (Ex. PW3/B). Statements of remaining prosecution witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 323 and 504 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined six witnesses to prove its case. Beli Ram (PW1) is the informant-victim. Brijesh Kumar (PW2) is an eyewitness. Dr. Manjeet Singh (PW3) conducted the medical examination of the victim. Saraswati Devi (PW4) is the daughter-in-law of the informant/victim. Rajinder Kumar (PW5) did not support the prosecution’s case. HC Dev Dutt (PW6) investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C., denied the prosecution's case in its entirety. He claimed that the informant falsely deposed against him because of a dispute over the path between them. He was innocent. However, he did not produce any evidence in defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that many houses were located in the vicinity of th