IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.157 of 2002 Date of decision: 30.12.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Punnu Ram and others Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No For the appellant: Mrs.Subh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondent.: Mr. Ashok, Sharma, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja,J (oral). This appeal has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba dated 21.11.2001, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 147,447,323,325 and 506 IPC. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 5.5.1996, at about 9.30 AM, a Rapat was lodged with the police at Police Post Sanghni by complainant Hoshiara, accompanied by his wife Sito Devi and his real brother Vijo. It was alleged by the complainant that he had ploughed his field in Village Sanghni and at about 8.00 AM, the respondents were working in his fields and he Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 prevented them since the land had been cultivated by him. On this, the respondents, six in number, started giving beatings to him with Dandas in furtherance of their common intention they inflicted blows on his head and right leg with those Dandas. He became unconscious and when he regained consciousness, he came to know that his wife and brother were also given beatings with Dandas and they had also been injured. The villagers on seeing the occurrence came there and rescued them from the clutches of the respondents. The respondents also threatened to take away their life. On this, a case was registered and subsequently, FIR was registered. After investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondents leading to their acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. On a perusal of the Rapat lodged by the complainant it is clear that he had only alleged that the land was ploughed by him in Village Sanghni but he had not given the Khasra numbers of the land in dispute in which the occurrence took place. The Investigating Officer PW-9 ASI Sadiq Mohammed had prepared the Site Plan Ex.PW-9/A and had shown the place where the occurrence had taken place as Mark “A”. However, he did not mention that this land was got demarcated or in which Khasra number, the occurrence had taken place and once it was established that the dispute had taken 3 place in a particular Khasra number, only then the copies of Jamabandis taken in possession, could be looked into to consider as to whether the land in question was in possession of the complainant party or its possession was with the accused party. In the absence of such findings, the copies of the Jamabandis proved in evidence are, therefore, of no relevance. The Investigating Officer PW-9 Saidq Mohhamad has admitted that a Civil Suit was going on in between the parties in regard to this land which shows that there was a dispute regarding the land in question and, therefore, the evidence of the prosecution has to be appreciated in the light of this pending case. Coming to the statement of Complainant PW-1 Hoshiara, he has stated that when he prevented the accused persons from working in the fields, they gave Lathi blows on his head and he became unconscious. He never alleged that the respondents were having any other weapons at that time and he also did not state which of the accused persons gave blows over his head or legs or which of the accused persons gave a Lathi blow over his head as a result of which he became unconscious. Once he had become unconscious and as alleged in the FIR that he learnt on regaining consciousness that his wife and brother have also been given beatings, it is clear that he did not witness the respondents giving blows on the person of his wife or his brother since he had become 4 unconscious. He again came up with a plea that Prithu accused gave blows over his head and leg with Dandas, Punnu was having a Behla with him and the remaining accused persons were having Dandas with them. He further stated that the Villagers came there and the respondents ran away and he became unconscious. His statement that his wife suffered injuries can be only said to be relevant in regard to the injuries and not as to which accused inflicted them since he was unconscious. He also did not state as to which of the accused persons gave the Danda blows on the person of his wife and brother and with which weapon. In cross-examination, he admitted that the disputed land has been mutated in the name of Gian Singh Respondent. PW-2 Sita Devi has stated that all the respondents gave beatings to them. She stated that her husband was given a blow with Behla by Prithu whereas PW-1 gave blows with Dandas while Punnu was having a Behla. Thus his statement is not corroborated by the statement of her husband PW- Hoshiara complainant. She further stated that she was given blows on her hand and was hit with Dandas. She also stated that Timru, Bhagat Ram and Lachhi came and rescued them. She did not state that that brother of her husband had also come to the spot along with her and he was also inflicted blows by the respondents at that time. Therefore, she has not stated anything about his presence who is one of the injured and 5 a material witness, who had come to the spot and had suffered injuries. She admitted that the disputed land belongs to four brothers and out of them two have died and the mutation has been attested in the name of Paras Ram’s son. She stated that she had shown the blood stained clothes to the police and according to PW-9 ASI Sadiq Mohammad though the clothes were blood stained yet were not taken in possession which would have given credence to the prosecution evidence. PW-3 Bijo Ram and brother of the complainant has stated that a quarrel took place in the fields and the accused persons gave beatings with Dandas, Behla, Bogri and Darat etc. He further stated that the complainant was given a blow with axe and Dandas which was not so stated by the complainant as PW-1 specifically. He stated that some persons came there and rescued them, however, he had not given their names. He simply stated that the wife of the complainant was given beatings but did not state which of the accused persons gave beatings to her at that time. He also did not state by which of the accused persons he was given beatings. PW-3 had stated that she was at her home when the quarrel had taken place which suggests that she had come to the spot subsequently. PW-4 Smt. Timro Devi has been examined as an eye witness. She was not named by the complainant in the first information report lodged with the Police though 6 her name was mentioned in the Court when he appeared in the Witness Box as PW-1. She stated that Hoshiara her Chacha, became unconscious which shows that she is related to the complainant. She stated that the respondents were having Dandas and Bagris in their hands with which blows were given. She did not state about the injuries inflicted on the person of wife of the complainant or brother of the complainant. She admitted about the dispute in between the parties in regard to the land. PW-5 Bhagat Ram was not named in the rapat lodged with the police. He has stated that the blows were given with Dandas on the person of Hoshiara complainant who fell down. He suffered injuries on his leg and head. She stated that this quarrel continued for 5 to 10 minutes whereas PW-4 Timro Devi has stated that the quarrel took place for half an hour. She stated that on the intervention of the villagers, the complainant party was saved but she did not state the names of the persons who had come to the spot. On appraisal of the above evidence led by the prosecution, it is very much clear that the statement of the complainant, his wife and his brother do not corroborate each other in regard to the injuries on the person of these persons or by which of the accused persons and the presence of the witnesses does not stand established at the spot since they were named subsequently by the 7 complainant when he appeared in the witness box. Keeping in view the fact that the relations in between the parties were strained and the statement of the complainant and his two relatives do not corroborate one another and the presence of the witnesses at the spot has not been established and they did not support the complainant party on material aspects, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondents beyond any reasonable doubt, cannot be said to be perverse calling for interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. 30th December, 2008 (V.K.Ahuja),J. (sds)