Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.471 of 2004. Judgment reserved on: 22.7.2011. Date of Decision: July 25th, 2011. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Charan Dass. …… Appellant. Versus Chhajju Ram and others. ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant : Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. : The present appeal has been filed by the complainant against the judgment, passed by the learned trial Court in Case No.61/II of 2002, decided on 1.12.2003, whereby the respondents were acquitted, for the offences punishable under Sections 430 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 3. PW1 Shri Charan Dass, complainant has been residing in his ancestral house in village Kothar Kalan, - 2 - District Una. In the year 1991, he obtained a water connection from IPH department. On 12th August, 1999, the respondents are alleged to have obstructed the water supply to the complainant on the pretext that the pipe-line of the water supply laid through their land. It is alleged that the respondents had abused the complainant and threatened him with dire consequences. 4. The matter was reported to the Panchayat as well as to the Police, but the water supply was not restored by the respondents even despite the orders of the Court. It is alleged that even Udham Singh, Raj Kumar and Avtar were not allowed to reconnect the water connection by the respondents, ultimately by the orders of the High Court, it was got restored. 5. Since the police is stated to have not taken any action, as such, he filed a private complaint before the learned trial Court on 29.11.1999 and led preliminary evidence. 6. Finding a prima-facie case for the offences aforesaid, respondents were charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted by the learned trial Court. - 3 - 7. It is evident from the evidence on record that the relationship inter-se him and the respondents are not cordial as having been locked into civil and criminal litigation since long and this fact has been clearly admitted by the complainant in his cross-examination. Further there is considerable improvement in the statement made by the complainant over and above the allegations made in the complaint with which he was confronted. It is also stated by him that the pipe-line passes through the lands of the respondents and various other persons. He admitted that his sons are advocates and also admitted the entire family of the respondents is accused in the criminal cases lodged by him. 8. PW2 Darshan Kumar, Junior Engineer in IPH department stated that the Fitters of the IPH department namely Udham Singh and Avtar had gone to reconnect the pipe line, but it was not allowed by the respondents, however, none of them were examined by the complainant to substantiate his case and the report Ext.PB submitted by PW2 aforesaid was admittedly without any further verification by him. He even did not meet the respondent Chhajju Ram to further verify the matter. - 4 - 9. PW3 Satya Pal is Senior Assistant in the IPH Department. He is a witness with respect to the issuance of domestic water connection to the complainant Charan Dass and payment of water bills, but he did not have any personal knowledge about the incident. 10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid evidence, the allegations made by the complainant lack probity and he could not prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. Even the witnesses who are alleged to have stated that the respondents did not allow them to reconnect the water pipe-line were not examined. Therefore, in view of the above, the alleged offence cannot be said to have been proved in accordance with law. Thus,, the appeal is without any merit, hence dismissed. 11. The respondents are discharged of their bails bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of this case. 12. Send down the records. July 25, 2011. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.