IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. : 105 of 2001 Reserved on: : 29.12.2007 Date of decision : 2.1.2008 State of H.P. … Appellant. Versus Sunder Ram and another. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the appellant. : Mr. Virender Kumar Verma, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. The respondents were prosecuted in case No.59/2 of 1998/96 under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bilaspur, H.P and were acquitted on 24th July, 2000. The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondents. The facts which can be gathered from the judgement of the trial Court that on 25.6.1995 at about 3.00 P.M accused had started laying down the foundation of his house which was objected to by the complainant Smt. Premi Devi (PW-1). The accused did not stop the digging. The accused gave beatings to the complainant and her daughter-in-laws and Sunder Ram gave drat blow on the head of Smt. Kaushalya Devi causing grievous heart. The matter was reported to the police and consequently F.I.R was registered and investigated. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court acquitted the respondents on 24.7.2000. The learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously contended that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused persons. He further contended that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution. Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate, had supported the judgement dated 24.7.2000. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. The complainant PW-1 Premi Devi had stated that on 25.6.1995 at about 3.00 P.M accused Sunder Ram started laying down the foundation of his house on the boundary line of his and complainant’s lands when the accused Sunder Ram was prevented he gave beatings to the complainant and her daughter-in-laws. She has admitted in her cross-examination that the accused was digging pit alongwith his house. PW-2 Sheela Devi had stated that when the accused Sunder Ram was prevented from digging pit he gave beatings to her mother-in-law. She has further admitted in her cross-examination that the land in dispute is situated adjacent to the house of accused Sunder Ram and the accused has already taken his demarcation from Tehsildar. PW-6 Kaushalya Devi, another daughter-in-law of the complainant had stated in her cross-examination that the land in dispute was demarcated and the boundary marks were already fixed. PW- 3 Vijay Kumar is son of the complainant. His version is at variance with the version of PWs 1, 2 and 6. He has stated that Santokha had given beatings to the complainant, his wife and Bhabhi. But neither the complainant nor the daughter-in- laws have stated that accused Santokha was in any manner involved in the commission of the offence. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he was not present at the spot when the incident took place. He reached the spot after 20- 25 minutes. PW-4 Jeet Ram has stated that the accused Sunder Ram has called Panchayat members and he had started fixing marks of the foundation with the help of rope. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that at the time of occurrence Vice-President Jagat Ram and members of the Panchayat were also 3 present on the spot. Neither the Vice President Jagat Ram nor any member of the Panchayat were cited as witnesses. PW-5 Krishanu Ram was declared hostile. In the Rapat Ext.PW-10/A it is stated that accused Sunder Ram had given Drat blow on the head of PW-6 Kaushalya Devi but the complainant and her daughter-in-laws and her son PW-3 Vijay Kumar, when appeared in the witness box, have not stated anywhere that accused Sunder Ram had given Drat blow on the head of PW-6 Kaushalya Devi. Kaushalya Devi while appearing as PW-6 has not stated that accused has given Drat blow on her head. This cast doubt on the version of the prosecution. It is evident from the record that the relationship between the complainant and the accused are strained over the boundary marks. The prosecution has failed to establish on record that the injuries mentioned in MLCs Ext.PW-9/B to Ext.PW-9/D are direct result of beatings by accused Sunder Ram. The trial Court after correctly appreciating the evidence has acquitted the accused on 24th July, 2000. This Court will not interfere in the well reasoned judgement of the trial Court dated 24th July, 2000. Consequently there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged. January 2, 2008 ( Rajiv Sharma), ™ Judge