IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 2002. Date of decision:24.12.2008. ________________________________________________________ State of H.P. .. ..Appellant Versus Sher Singh .. ..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Appellant: Mr.R.M. Bisht, Dy.A.G. For the respondent: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.5.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. in Criminal Case No.48-II/97 whereby he has acquitted the accused of having committed an office punishable under Section 325 IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.9.1996 cattle of the accused Sher Singh entered the fields of the complainant Vijay Singh. Vijay Singh chased the cattle and thereafter went to the field of Satpal which was being ploughed by accused Sher Singh and objected to the cattle of the accused coming to his field. According to the complainant, Sher Singh started hurling filthy abuses on him and gave him beatings. On the basis of this complaint FIR was registered. The complainant was got medically examined. One of the …2… injuries was found to be grievous. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed in the Court and the accused summoned. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On conclusion of the trial the accused was acquitted. Hence, the present appeal. The complainant has supported his case while appearing as PW-1. According to him the cattle of the accused were causing damage to his field and he drove out the cattle from his field. He then went to the accused and asked him to rein in his cattle and keep them under his control. On hearing this, accused beat him up, as a result of which he received injuries. He states that Virender and Gurdyal saved him from the clutches of the accused. There is no statement made by the complainant as to whether he was in his field when the cattle of the accused entered the filed or whether he was informed by somebody and then came to his filed. Admittedly his house is at a distance of about half k.m. away from the fields where the incident took place and there is a hillock between the fields and his house. It is also not disputed that the altercation took place not on the land of the complainant but on the fields of Satpal. As far as the two independent witnesses are concerned they have turned hostile. According to them they only saw the complainant and the accused hurling filthy abuses at each other and both of them had caught each other by the throat. They saw nothing more. …3… Though they were declared hostile and cross examined, nothing material has been elicited in the cross examination by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. There is no manner of doubt that an altercation did take place between the parties but what was the genesis of the altercation has not been proved on record. As already mentioned above, it was the complainant who went to the field of Satpal where the accused was ploughing the field. How and in what manner the fight took place is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. I find no reason to interfere with the said judgment. There is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly rejected. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. December 24, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge