IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 462/2004 Date of decision: 18.8. 2011 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Nanak Chand and another ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the Appellant: Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral). Respondents were accused in Criminal Case No. 45-1 of 2001 decided on 22.4.2004, whereby they were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 506 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, which has been challenged by the State in the present appeal. 2. Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General has taken me through the record and argued that there is statement of the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - complainant as well as his witnesses to prove the charges against the respondents and the learned trial Court wrongly acquitted the respondents. 3. I have reappraised the evidence on record and I do find that the dispute inter se the parties was basically with respect to the land and the house, and the parties are locked into litigation since long. The house of the complainant Ravinder Singh is also nearby. According to him, he was sitting in the house of his uncle Hari Singh to know the condition of his aunt who was bed-ridden as respondent No. 2 is alleged to have given her beatings earlier. It is also alleged that when the complainant along with his uncle Hari Singh was taking meals in the kitchen, respondents entered inside it by opening the door of the kitchen forcibly, with the result the wooden bolt got broken. Nanak Chand was having danda in his hand but he did not use it. His friend Partap Singh and relative Anup Kumar were also sitting there. The moment they tried to manhandle the complainant, they were separated by Partap Singh and Anup Kumar but while leaving the place, they threatened the complainant with dire consequences. Consequently report was lodged. - 3 - 4. The respondents are stated to be residing in one portion of the same house. This house is admittedly under litigation, which fact has been clearly admitted by PW2 H.C. Parmod Singh in his cross-examination. He also admitted that the respondents had also informed him during the investigation that the case with respect to the house and the kitchen had already been decided in their favour. 5. Pertinently, Hari Singh, uncle of the complainant, who was said to be present there at the relevant time, was not examined to substantiate the case of the prosecution. The witnesses introduced by the complainant are the chance witnesses and closely related/associated with the complainant and this fact is also proved by PW3 in his cross-examination that on the day of his examination in the Court he and another witness was accompanied by the complainant himself from his residence to the Court house despite the fact that the statement of the complainant was already recorded at an earlier date. There is also a contradiction in the statement of PW4 Partap Singh as also the statement of the complainant to this effect. The complainant stated that at the relevant - 4 - time, they were about to take meals in the meantime, respondents had made forcible entry into the kitchen whereas PW4 Partap Singh stated that all of them were taking meals and the aunt of the complainant was sleeping in another room. His uncle was present in the kitchen. The house in question where the alleged incident had taken place is located in the village and no person from the vicinity was enquired into and examined in the Court to substantiate the case of the complainant. Thus, the case of the prosecution cannot be said to have been proved beyond doubt. 6. In view of the aforesaid evidence, in my considered opinion, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are borne out from the evidence on record. Therefore, the acquittal of the respondents calls for no interference. In result, the appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. 7. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of this case. Send down the record. August 18, 2011 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge