IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 523 of 2002 Date of judgment: June 5, 2009 State of H.P. .. Appellant Versus Mani Ram and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby respondents Mani Ram and others, who were tried for offences, punishable under Sections 325, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, have been acquitted. 2. Facts, as emerge from the evidence on record, are that PW-1 Luxmi Dutt (injured) and respondent Mani Ram are real brothers. They were having dispute over some house property. A suit was filed by respondent Mani Ram against PW-! Luxmi Dutt, PW-2 Meen Singh and one more person, seeking issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining them from demolishing two walls of his Abadi. That suit was decreed by a Civil Court on 1.9.1999. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 3. On 26.8.2001, respondents allegedly went to the roof of their house and started preparing concrete for placing the same on the top of a wall. PW-1 Luxmi Dutt, claiming the said wall to belong to him, went upstairs and started objecting to the action of the respondents. Respondents allegedly assaulted him. They carried him to their roof top and fisticuffed and kicked him, as a result of which one of his ribs was fractured. Matter was reported to the police. Police investigated the case and challaned all the five respondents. 4. Trial court charged the respondents with the aforesaid offences and on their pleading not guilty tried them. 5. Prosecution examined PW-1 Luxmi Dutt and PW-2 Meen Singh, as eye witnesses, to bring the charge home to the respondents. Trial Court has not relied upon the testimony of the two eye witnesses and has also observed that there had been a dispute between the parties with respect to the wall, in question, and a civil suit was filed by respondent Mani Ram with respect to that dispute and the same was decreed in his favour. Consequently, respondents were acquitted. 6. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the evidence. 7. Admittedly, there was a dispute between the parties with respect to the property, in question. PW-1 Luxmi Dutt, per his own deposition, demolished the common wall with a view to reconstructing his house. Respondents tried to repair their side of the common wall. They were sought to be prevented from - 3 - doing so by PW-1 Luxmi Dutt and it was in the course of such attempt by PW-1 Luxmi Dutt that respondents used criminal force against him. Since PW-1 Luxmi Dutt unauthorizedly attempted to prevent the respondents from repairing their wall and roof, the latter were justified in using criminal force, which was not excessive, because as per evidence, they did not use any weapon, but only dealt fist and kick blows. 8. In view of the above stated position, I see no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. June 5, 2009(ss) (Surjit Singh), J