IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 54 of 2005. Date of decision: 8.9.2011. Sheela Chandel ….. Petitioner. Vs. Champa Devi & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate. For the respondents : M/s N.S.Chandel & Dinesh Thakur, Advocates, for respondents No. 1 to 5 and 7. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. A.G. for proforma respondent No. 8. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This revision is directed against the judgement, dated 20.9.2004, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate IInd Class, Bilaspur, in Cr. Case No. 168/2 of 99, acquitting the respondents, for offence punishable, under Sections 147, 447, 323 and 506 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that PW 1 Sheela Devi reported the matter to the police that on 12.11.1999 at about 1.45 p.m, when she was raising construction of her house, the respondents appeared and asserted that they want to construct the retaining wall on the spot. The complainant- petitioner requested the respondents to obtain demarcation. On this, the respondents stated Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… that they would not allow the petitioner to construct the house. In the meantime the daughter of Bhagat Ram respondent hit the petitioner on her head by stones and blood started oozing out. The son of Bhagat Ram also hit the petitioner on her forehead and on the fingers of right hand by stick. On this a case was registered. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the court. The respondents were charged accordingly. They pleaded not guilty. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses to prove its case. The statements of respondents were recorded, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the prosecution case. The respondents led defence evidence and on conclusion of trial, the respondents were acquitted. The State did not file an appeal against acquittal of respondents, but petitioner filed the revision. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that respondent No. 6 Bhagat Ram has died. It has also come on record that he died on 21.9.2008, therefore, revision against him does not survive. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that learned court below has not properly appreciated the material on record and has erred in acquitting the respondents. He has submitted that in view of evidence on record the prosecution has proved its case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for setting-aside the impugned judgement. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that learned court below has rightly appreciated the …3… material on record. The view taken by the court below emerges from the evidence on record. The State has accepted the decision rendered by the trial court. There is no merit in the revision, the learned counsel for respondents has prayed for dismissal of the revision. 5. PW 1 Sheela Devi reported to the police vide rapat Ex. PW 11/A that on 12.11.1999 at about 1.45 p.m., Bhagat Ram, Champa Devi, Dinesh Kumar, Pinku, Reeta, Babli trespassed over her land. They asserted that they want to construct a retaining wall on the spot. The petitioner asked them to get the demarcation. On this, all of them said that they would not allow her to construct her house. In the meantime, the daughter of Bhagat Ram hit her with stones, as a result of which blood started oozing out from her head. The son of Bhagat Ram hit the petitioner with Danda on her head and on the right hand fingers. They also abused her. 6. PW 1 in the court has stated that at about 9.00 a.m., some accused came on the spot and occurrence took place at about 1.00 p.m on 12.11.1999. However, in Ex. PW 11/A the petitioner has not stated that some of the accused came on the spot at 9.00 a.m. and other came later on and then occurrence took place. PW 1 has not stated in her statement in the court who threw the stones. She has stated that Dinesh hit her with “Belcha” on her head and Naresh hit her with stick. In Ex. PW 11/A the petitioner has stated that son of Bhagat Ram hit her with stick without naming any particular son and she has also not stated that son of Bhagat Ram hit her with “Belcha”. …4… 7. PW 2 Jagmohan is the son of petitioner. He has given the date of occurrence as 11.11.1999. He has also stated that Dinesh hit his mother with “Belcha” and Sarita hit his mother with stones. In Ex. PW 11/A the petitioner has named only Reeta and Babli daughters of Bhagat Ram, who came on the spot. The petitioner has not named any Sarita. Thus, the star witnesses of the prosecution have created serious doubt in the prosecution story. It has come on record that civil litigation between the parties was also started by the husband of the petitioner, which suit was dismissed. 8. PW 7 Hariman, Kanungo has stated that petitioner tried to raise construction over the suit land, which was in possession of the respondents. In view of these facts, it cannot be said that trial court has erred in acquitting the respondents. On the contrary, it emerges from the evidence on record that possible view has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The scope of revision is very narrow. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference. 9. Resultantly, the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds of respondents are discharged. September 8, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.