IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 545/1996 Reserved on: 19.4.2010 Decided on: 28.4. 2010 _____________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. Versus Luhar Ram and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Per Rajiv Sharma, J. State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 30.12.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 1994, whereby respondents charged with and tried for offences punishable under sections 307, 379, 447, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that Nand Lal, resident of village Kot objected to removal of maize crop by respondents. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 Respondents did not listen to Nand Lal. He met the respondents at 7.00 P.M. and asked them why they have removed the maize crop. Respondent No.1-Luhar Ram gave danda blow at his head and he fell down. Thereafter all the respondents started beating him with fists and kicks. He was rescued by Sarla Devi, Ganga Ram and Nagnu Ram. His statement was recorded under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide Ex.PA, on the basis of which FIR was registered and the investigation commenced. Nand Lal was medically examined. The challan was put up in the Court against the respondents after completing all the codal formalities under section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses in all to prove its case against the respondents. Respondents were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their defence is of simplicitor denial. The learned trial court acquitted the respondents. 4. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondents. 5. Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma has supported the judgment of the learned trial court. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 7. PW-1 Nand Lal has deposed that the land was given to him in consolidation about 2½ years back and he was cultivating the same. He cultivated the maize crop and the same was removed 3 by the respondents in the month of September at 7/8 A.M. in the morning. He asked the respondents why they were cutting and removing the maize crop. The respondents told him that the crop belongs to them and did not listen to Nand Lal. In the evening, he went to his cowshed. He again asked the respondents why they have removed the maize crop. He was given danda blow by respondent No.1 on his head and other respondents started beating him with firsts and kicks. He has also deposed that he had paid compensation to the respondents for the crop. According to him, he deposited money with Kanungo PW-5 Raghunath. 8. PW-2 Ganga Ram and PW-3 Nagnu Ram have deposed that the maize crop was cultivated by Nand Lal. PW-2 Ganga Ram has deposed that Nand Lal had paid Rs. 200/- as compensation of maize crop to Luhar Ram in his presence and in the presence of Khira Mani and Nagnu. PW-3 Nagnu has deposed that Nand Lal had paid Rs. 100/- and some rupees at the time of consolidation to the Patwari. PW-5 Raghunath, Kanungo and PW-6 Krishan Gopal, Patwari have categorically testified that no money was deposited with them. 9. There are inherent contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses relied upon by the prosecution, as noticed above. It is not mentioned in FIR Ex. PA that Nand Lal (PW-1) had gone to Police Station, Gohar to lodge report against the respondents when they started cutting/removing the maize crop in the morning at 7/8 A.M. However, in his 4 statement before the Court he has deposed that he went to police station to lodge the report, but police personnel told him that they are busy due to local fair and they will visit the spot tomorrow. In the FIR, he has reported that he went to the respondents in the evening at 7.00 P.M. and asked them why they have cut maize crop. However, when he appeared in the Court he has not stated so. He has deposed while appearing as PW-1 that when he reached at cowshed, the respondents were sitting there in verandah. Respondent Luhar Ram came with a danda in his hand and gave danda blow on his head. Other respondents also started beating him. Moreover, neither PW-1 Nand Lal nor PW-2 Ganga Ram and PW-3 Nagnu produced any receipt that the compensation was paid to respondent Luhar Ram. It is evident that the respondents owned and possessed the land before the consolidation. It is not on record that Nand Lal was put in possession of the land. PW-1 Nand Lal has admitted in his cross- examination that maize crop was in fact sown by respondent Luhar Ram at that time. His version that he has paid the compensation to him is belied by the statement of PW-5 Raghunath, Kanungo and PW-6 Krishan Gopal, Patwari. PW-5 Raghunath has also deposed that he did not know who was in actual possession on the spot. Similarly, PW-6 Krishan Gopal has deposed that he did not know who had cultivated the maize crop. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, the view taken by the learned trial court is supportable by the evidence and there is no perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court. 5 Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents/accused stand cancelled. (Deepak Gupta), J. (Rajiv Sharma), J. 28.4. 2010 *awasthi*