State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Gurdev Singh And Others

FIR NUMBER,"171/06 dated 17.10.2006, Police Station Gagret, Tehsil Amb, District Una

under Section 341, 323, 325, read with Section 34 IPC.

TRIAL COURT CASE NO.,"Case No.158-1 of 2006/26-II/2009, decided on 18.11.2009, by learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Amb, District Una, H.P.

The earliest version as mentioned in DDR No.31 based on which the police has registered FIR Ex.PW-7/A specifically mentions the following,

aspects:,

a) That on 13.10.2006, at about 6.00 a.m. Veena Kumari PW-3, had gone to attend the call of nature.",

b) Without any rhyme and reason A-2, Usha Devi started beating her with her hands by giving her fist blows.",

c) On hearing commotion, her mother Bholi PW-2, reached at the spot and tried to rescue her daughter from the clutches of Usha Devi.",

d) In the meanwhile, Gurdev Singh A-1 came at the spot and he was carrying a Bamboo stick with him.",

e) On reaching the spot A-1 Gurdev Singh started hitting both Bholi and Veena with Bamboo stick.,

f) In the meantime, Tarsem PW-1, husband of Bholi and father of Veena reached there, then the accused ran away from the spot.",

g) The scuffle was witnessed by number of villagers.,

h) The accused persons are quarrelsome by nature and without any rhyme and reason they keep on entering into scuffle with them and hurl abuses to,

them.,

In the Court the witnesses PW-2 Bholi reiterated her statement and PW-3 Veena corroborated the same. The only addition, which Veena Devi",

made, in her statement, was that her father and Satish Kumar had rescued them from the clutches of the accused. All the three witnesses PW-1",

Tarsem, PW-2 Bholi and PW-3 Veena made another improvement that they have dispute with the accused owing to the partition of the property.",

Even if the improved version of the witnesses in their testimonies is believed to be gospel truth, then their relationship were not cordial due to some",

dispute because of the partition, still in the earliest version and even in the testimonies, there is no reason assigned for giving beatings to Veena by",

Usha. PW-3 Veena with whom the incident had started explicitly stated in her statement on oath that at 6.00 a.m., she had gone to attend the call of",

nature. When she was returning home, Usha Devi suddenly came out of her home on the path and started hurling abuses to her. She specifically",

stated that without any rhyme and reason Veena Devi started hurling abuses and when she asked the reasons, she started giving beatings to her.",

A reading of the FIR as well as testimonies of witnesses PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, in Court, does not utter a whisper that they had also caused",

injuries to Usha Devi A-2 and how did she sustain injuries. In their cross-examination, they denied that she has received injuries. However, the",

investigator PW-7 admitted that Usha Devi had sustained injuries in the same scuffle and even her MLC was conducted.,

Given above, the prosecution has conveniently suppressed the genesis of occurrence. The absence of any evidence about the way A-2 Usha Devi",

had received injuries, probablize the defence version in the shape of cross-examination and corroborated by investigator that it was initially Bholi Devi",

and Veena Devi, who had caused injuries to Usha Devi A-2. This possibility cannot be ruled out, given the suppression of initiation of the scuffle.",

If the complainant PW-2 Bholi and her daughter PW-3 Veena had not inflicted injuries to A-2 Usha, then how did she receive injuries at the same",

time in the same scuffle, is highly questionable and points out that these witnesses have not come to the Court with clean hands.",

The suppression of injuries and explanation that without any rhyme and reasons Usha Devi started giving beatings to Veena is improbable. There,

is no allegation that Usha Devi was mentally challenged or unfit. Thus, the possibility of her retaliating or acting in a private defence cannot be ruled",

out.,

The prosecution has failed to discharge its initial burden, which always lies on the prosecution. Because the initial burden never shifted on the",

accused, as such they were under no legal obligation to discharge the same. Therefore, their non-explanation in the statement under Section 313",

Cr.P.C. is inconsequential.,

The analysis of the entire evidence does not prove that on whose instance the quarrel had initiated and who were the aggressors. Thus on the,

basis of such evidence, the accused cannot be held guilty and are entitled to benefit of doubt.",

A perusal of the impugned judgment also calls for no interference. Given above there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly,

dismissed.,