J U D G M E N T

CHARGES & TRIAL COURT’S VERDICT Accused Salpur Sections 341, 323, Accused acquitted

325 IPC The case of the prosecution, based upon the investigation conducted and as testified by PW-10, investigator HC Kewal Ram is as follows:

“ On 26th December, 2008, Smt.Twar Mani (PW-1), visited police station and lodged a complaint. She alleged that her son Mukesh Kumar (PW-2) was stopped by Salpur accused and he threw a stick on him and made him fall on a stone due to which his six front teeth broken. Based on such information FIR Ex.PW-1/A captioned above was registered.”

2. The investigator conducted the investigation and prepared a spot map Ex.PW-10/A. He also took photographs of the spot on official camera, which were tendered in evidence Ex.PA-1 to PA-3. The investigator also seized the shirt worn by Mukesh PW-2. The investigator noticed that blood had oozed out from his mouth, which was cleaned by a white coloured cloth. Such cloth was also taken into possession and later on tendered in evidence as Ex.PX. The investigator also procured Medico-Legal Certificate Ex.PW-8/A, X-ray Ex.PW-8/B and opinion of the dentist Ex.PW-9/A. After completion of the investigation, Shri Ram Fal Yadav, approved the challan and launched prosecution against the accused Salpur.

3. Vide order dated 30th July, 2009, learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class, Court No.2, Rohru, District Shimla framed charge against the accused for commission of offences under Section 341, 323, 325 IPC. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined accused Mukesh Kumar, as PW-2, who at that time was a child aged 11 years, his mother Smt. Twar Mani as PW-1, doctors, who has examined him, other witnesses of the spot and the investigator. After completion of the evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused were put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the allegations as incorrect and explained that the witnesses were interested. He further made a statement that the child had fallen on his own when he tried to run away from the spot.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

6. Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General has based his arguments on paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the grounds of appeal. He further argued that PW-1, Twar Mani was witness of the incident and learned Court below has not appreciated the evidence in a proper way.

7. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajul Chauhan, Advocate appearing for the respondent argued that the child had sustained injuries due to a fall, as a result of which his first set of teeth got broken. Learned counsel stated that the injured did not fall because of any role of the accused.

ANALYSIS AND REASONINGS.

8. The injured appeared in the Court as PW-2. Learned Court tried to ascertain his mental caliber and took his statement on oath. The injured Mukesh PW-2 along with his younger brother Ashish and sister Hem Lata were playing with Suresh Kumar, who is son of the accused. Suresh Kumar slapped Ashish and also hit him with stone. Ashish complained about this to Mukesh and then Mukesh slapped Suresh. After that Suresh went to his father and he came at the spot carrying a stick with him and gave him beatings with the stick. Due to the impact of the sticks, he fell on the stone and broke his teeth. In the meantime, his sister Hem Lata, came towards him. He stated that the accused has hit him on his leg due to which he had fallen down. Because his mouth had hit against a stone as such his six teeth were broken and blood oozed out of his mouth. He also proved his blood