IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 242 of 2010 Date of decision: 20.7. 2011 Parkash Chand …..Petitioner Versus Gorkhu Ram and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the petitioner: Ms. Salochna Kaundal, Advocate, For the respondent : Mr. Dushyant Dadhwal, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Respondent No. 5 deleted. Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. AG for respondent No. 6. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral). Heard and gone through the record. 2. This revision petition is against the concurrent findings of acquittal, by the complainant in State case registered by him in terms of FIR No. 61/2005 in Police Station Shahpur under Sections 147,447,324, 506 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. 3. In short, prosecution story can be stated thus. On 14.5.2005, complainant Parkash Chand had gone to 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes. - 2 - his fields along with his mother Smt. Niko Devi and son Parvesh Kumar to harvest wheat-crop. In the adjoining field, respondents were also harvesting their crop. When the complainant was sitting on the boundary of his field, respondent Gorkhu Ram came nearer to him and started abusing. Thereafter, the wife of Gorkhu Ram came there and pushed the complainant with the result, he fell on the ground. When complainant told them to desist from their illegal activities, the respondent proclaimed that he along with his family members was harvesting his crop. In the meantime, remaining respondents came there and caught-hold of him. It is alleged that Gorkhu Ram and Amit Kumar gave blows of sickle to the complainant and Kanta Devi dealt a danda blow on him. The mother of the complainant and his son raised alarm. On hearing it, wife of the complainant came to the spot but the respondents made escape from the spot. Respondents are also alleged to have threatened the complainant party with dire consequences. 4. The matter was reported to police. Police conducted the investigation. The complainant was got medically examined. He had sustained simple injuries on his person. The police procured the Medico Legal Certificate of the complainant, recorded the statements - 3 - of the witnesses and presented the challan in the Court for the trial of the respondents. 5. Respondents were accordingly chargesheeted for the offences aforesaid. They abjured their guilt and claimed trial. 6. At the end of the trial respondents were acquitted on the grounds that the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case. There was material deviation in the statements of the witnesses and the averments made in FIR. The Medical expert also admitted that the injuries in question can be possible by fall from a height. 7. Feeling dissatisfied by the impugned judgment of acquittal, State filed appeal before the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge took note of the contradictions in the statements of Smt. Niko Devi mother of the complainant and Parvesh Kumar and further the independent witnesses PW4 and PW10 who were alleged to have been present on the spot did not corroborate the prosecution case rather they testified that no such occurrence took place in their presence. Even they went to the extent of saying that the respondents did not enter into the fields of the complainant in any manner or threatened the - 4 - complainant and his family members. It was also noticed that the parties were locked in the previous litigation and were not in talking terms with each other. There have been contradictions in the story as spelt out in the FIR and as stated by the complainant and his mother during the trial of the case. 8. PW6 Office Kanungo who visited the spot had given his report Ext. PW6/A with respect to khasra No. 281 which belong to the complainant whereas adjacent khasra No. 280 belongs to the respondents. 9. The prosecution could not point out that the respondents had encroached khasra No. 281 belonging to the complainant. It is also worth noticing that PW2 Smt. Niko Devi has admitted that a case with respect to khasra No. 281 seeking correction of the revenue entries by the respondents is also pending. Therefore, I find no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the judgments passed by the courts below. Hence the revision petition is dismissed. Cr. M.P. No. 952/2010. Infructuous. July 20, 2011 (Surinder Singh),J. (cm)