State of H.P. vs Ranjeet Chauhan

Surinder Singh, J.—The acquittal of the Respondent is in question in this criminal appeal.

Heard and gone through the record of the case.

In short, the prosecution case is that on 6th October, 2001, PW1 Beena Devi alongwith Vijaya Laxmi, Lata Devi and Lali Devi were sitting and chatting in the courtyard of Beena Devi. After sometime, Respondent happens to pass through the common path besides the courtyard and hurled abuses to them. On having objected to by the complainant, the Respondent got Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? agitated and gave two slaps to Vijay Laxmi. When Beena Devi tried to relieve her from the clutches of the Respondent, she was also given 3-4 slaps. The Respondent while leaving the place also threatened them with the dire consequences.

The matter was reported to the police by Beena Devi. It is alleged that the right gold ear ring of Vijay Laxmi also got lost in the said episode. Police lodged the FIR under Sections 451, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, hence started investigation in this case.

After recording the statements of the witnesses and preparation of the site plan and on completing the challan, it was presented in the court against the Respondent for his trial. At the end of the trial, he was acquitted by the learned trial Court.

Shri J.S. Rana, learned Assistant Advocate General, appearing for the State forcefully argued that the reasoning given by the learned trial Court for acquitting the Respondent, on the ground that the contradiction is wrong and illegal and further the complainant and her witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. As such, there are grounds to convert the acquittal into conviction.

Shri Gulzar Rathore, learned Counsel for the Respondent has supported the reasoning given by the learned trial Court for the acquittal of the Respondent.

It is pertinent to note that there is no explanation about the missing/ recovery of the right ear ring (gold) of Vijay Laxmi neither in her statement nor in the report u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It stands established on record that there was an old litigation and enmity inter se the parties. About 4/5 cases were instituted by the complainant party against the Respondent and his family members. The incident in question is alleged to have been exaggerated. It has come in the evidence that the complainant alongwith her friends as sitting in the compound of her house, where other houses are locating and there is conflicting evidence on the point of sitting of them in the court yard. The entire case hinges around the statements of three witnesses, i.e. complainant Beena Devi, Vijay Laxmi and Lata Devi. The Investigating Officer when examined in the court expressed his ignorance about the previous litigation.

The case of the Respondent is denial simplicitor. Even he did not say anything in his statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the previous litigation, whereas it did appear in the cross-examination of the witnesses examined by the prosecution.

On the close scrutiny of the evidence led by the prosecution and in the background of the old enmity, I do not find that the prosecution has been able to prove a case against the Respondent beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appeal is without any merit, hence dismissed.

11 The Respondent is discharged from his bail bonds entered upon by him during the proceedings of the case.

Send down the records.