IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Criminal Appeal No. 731 of 2002. Decided on: 9.7.2008. __________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. … Appellant. Versus Banwari Lal Verma & anr. … Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’bl Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. For the Respondent : Mr. Ashutosh Burathoki, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. (Oral). The respondents were prosecuted in criminal case No. RBT No. 95-II/01/02 under Section 447 read with Section 34 IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class (1), Dharamshala, H.P. They were acquitted on 1.7.2002. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal as gathered from the judgment of the trial Court are that in the month of October, 1999 at old Charri road the accused in furtherance of their common intention trespassed into the land of the complainant-Shri B.R. Malhotra. They started carving out path with the dimension of 37 metres in length and 3.35 metres wide forcibly. Shri B.R. Malhotra (PW-1) received a telephonic message about the criminal trespass by the accused. He reached at the spot and filed a written complaint Ext. PW- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 1/A. The F.I.R. Ext. PW-7/A was registered. The matter was investigated by the police and challan was put up in the Court. The prosecution had examined eight witnesses to prove its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court acquitted the respondents on 1.7.2002. Thus, this appeal by the State. The learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case and the judgment dated 1.7.2002 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Mr. Ashutosh Burathoki, Advocate has supported the judgment dated 1.7.2002. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record carefully. PW1-B.R. Malhotra has admitted before the trial Court that path was not carved out in his presence by the accused. He also admitted that the path in question was carved out by the Municipal Committee. PW2-Devki Devi has deposed on oath that accused-Banwari started construction of road through the land of Kamla without deposing the date on which he started work. She has also categorically admitted that the road was constructed by the Municipal Committee. PW3-Joginder Singh has also admitted that the road in question was constructed by the Committee. PW4-Ghunna Devi was declared hostile. PW5-Banwari Lal has proved Aks Sajra Ext.PW5/A and Jamabandis Ext. PW5/B and Ext. PW5/C. PW8-Rattan Lal, Field Kanungo had proved the demarcation report Ext. PW8/A. PW7-ASI Krishan Lal has carried out the investigation. It is clear from the evidence brought on record that the land in question has been sold by the complainant to various vendees including the present accused. It has also come in the evidence that before the road was carved out and constructed by the Municipal Committee, the accused persons were using this path. It has also come in evidence that 3 the accused persons had to necessarily cross the land in question to reach their houses. The trial Court has correctly appreciated the statements of witnesses. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused and this Court will not interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail/surety bonds are discharged. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 9, 2008. (cr)