IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No. 654 of 2001 Date of decision : August 22, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Karam Chand and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 16th June, 1999, of the trial Magistrate, whereby respondents Karam Chand and Mungti Devi, who are husband and wife, respectively, have been acquitted of charge, under Sections 447, 324 and 323, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case was registered against the respondents, at the instance of PW-1 Drumi Devi. It was reported by said PW-1 Drumi Devi that on 7th October, 1995, the respondents started mowing grass from a portion of land, in her family’s possession and when she sent her daughters, Shanta Devi (PW-3) and Leena (PW-4) to check the respondents, they assaulted them and hit PW-4 Leena on her shoulder with the handle of sickle. It was further reported that when the above-named two daughters Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… of PW-1 Drumi Devi returned home and told Drumi Devi that they had been assaulted and Leena had been hit with the handle of sickle, she (Drumi Devi) herself went to the field but she too was assaulted and hit with the sharp side of the sickle on her wrist, resulting in an incised wound. 3. Trial Court charged the respondents with offences punishable, under Sections 447, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution examined PW-1 Drumi Devi, her two daughters PW-3 Shanta Devi and PW-4 Leena, besides examining the doctor, namely PW-2 Dr. Geeta Kaul, to bring the charge home to the respondents. 4. Respondents denied the accusation and pleaded that they had been cutting grass from their own land and that civil litigation had been going on between the parties with regard to the ownership and possession of the land from which they were cutting grass. They tendered in evidence copies of the plaint, written statement and a consent order passed in that suit. A reading of the said plaint, written statement and order, Ex. DC, DB and DA, respectively, shows that a suit was filed by Lekh Ram, PW-1 Drumi Devi and Kusam son of PW-1 Drumi Devi, claiming that they were joint owners to the extent of 3/4th share in certain land with the respondents. Respondents denied the claim. Suit was ultimately withdrawn, as compromised, by PW-1 Drumi Devi, her husband and her son. The order is dated 9th June, 1997. Suit was filed in the year 1994 and incident had taken place on 7th October, 1995. Withdrawal of the suit, per order Ex. DA, suggests that the possession of the land, in …3… question, was with the respondents. If that is so it can legitimately be inferred that PW-1 Drumi Devi and her daughters tried to interfere with the possession of the respondents illegally and the latter used force within permissible limits to defend their possession. Only minor injuries were sustained by PW-1 Drumi Devi and her daughter Leena. So, the respondents cannot be said to have made excessive use of force while defending their possession. Under these circumstances, I find no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. August 22, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J