IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.P. (M) No. 850/2010 Date of decision: 6. 9. 2010 State of H.P. ….Petitioner Versus Nakhro Devi ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : None. Surinder Singh J. (Oral) State felt aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent for offences under Sections 324, 352 Indian Penal code for inciting her dog to bite the complainant. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. In short, prosecution story can be stated thus. On 27.12.2008, complainant Veena Devi, who was Ward Member and also the Pradhan of Mahila Mandal at village Haled, made a complaint to the police that 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - respondent was creating obstruction to the development activities in the village. It was alleged that on the said date, a truck, loaded of sand was brought. While it was being unloaded on the road, respondent objected to it and started quarreling with her. Respondent incited her dog to give a bite to her. Police registered a case against the respondent and got the complainant medically examined. Spot map was also prepared. Photographs of the site were taken and after completing the investigation, challan was presented in the court for the trial of the respondent. 4. At the end of the trial, respondent was acquitted by the learned trial Court. 5. The complainant when examined before the Court stated that respondent objected to for her unloading the material on the road and started using abusive language. A black dog was also with her. She made a signal to the dog and dog bit her. The name of the dog was not given nor it was stated as to how respondent had incited the dog to bite her. It is not clear on the record that the dog pertained to her. The complainant admitted that a case was instituted by the respondent against her which is pending in the Court of S.D.M. - 3 - 6. PW2 husband of the complainant also made a statement that at the time of the alleged incident about 35 persons were present on the spot. Whereas PW3 Rajeshna Devi stated that no scuffle had taken place inter se the complainant and the respondent. However, PW4 Sumana Devi in cross-examination admitted the past litigation with the respondent. She further stated that many stray dogs keep on wandering in the village. In other words, she failed to establish the ownership of the dog. PW5 Smt. Anju Devi has not supported the case of the prosecution although she stated that respondent had kept a pet dog but did not see the pet dog of the respondent. She also stated that many stray dogs keep on wandering in the village. 7. Photographs Ext. PW6/D shows that the material was unloaded on the main road leading to the village thereby reducing its width considerably near the house of respondent. The act of the complainant herself appears to be not up to the mark. It was rather her duty that material should not have been unloaded on the main passage thereby reducing its width considerably. The villagers have every right to object to cause - 4 - obstruction. Under the mantle of Pradhan Mahila Mandal or as a Ward Member, she was not justified to cause nuisance on the common path. Further, the ownership of the dog aforesaid and the evidence with respect to inciting the dog to bite the complainant is not worth inspiring confidence. As such the acquittal of the respondent cannot be interfered, as the reasons advanced by the learned trial Court are deducible from the record. Therefore, leave to appeal is rejected. September 6, 2010 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)