IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 271 of 2002 Date of decision: 2.1.2009. State of H.P. …. Appellant. Vs. Jalam Singh and others ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant-State: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Y.P.S. dhaulta, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur, in Criminal Case No. 14/2 of 1998 dated 1.11.2001, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 325 and 506(II) IPC read with Section 149 IPC. A complaint was lodged by PW-2 Ramia Ram. It was alleged in the complaint that he was the owner of about 2½ bighas of land in village Sainj and he had sown paddy crop on the same. On 27.9.1997 he had gone to Jubbal alongwith Daulat Ram and Dantu Ram and when he returned back he saw that the accused persons and some other persons including one Shri Mohi Ram were cutting the paddy crop in his field. He objected to the same and asked Mohi Ram why they were removing the paddy crop. The accused persons and other persons present on the spot claimed that the paddy crop as well as the land belongs to them and they will remove the same. In the meantime, the accused persons who were armed with sticks started beating 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment . yes. 2 the complainant and removed his crop. When he raised a hue and cry Dantu Ram and Daulat Ram came to the spot and saved him from the accused. On the basis of this complaint, F.I.R was lodged and investigation was conducted. The accused were summoned. They appeared in Court and pleaded not guilty. Consequently, they were sent up for trial. After trial they have been acquitted. Hence, this appeal by the State. At the outset, it may be mentioned that Dantu Ram has not been examined by the prosecution at all. Therefore, there are two eye witness to the occurrence, complainant Ramia Ram PW-2 and Daulat Ram PW-3. It has come in evidence that Daulat Ram’s wife is the sister of the complainant. In this case, it is apparent that the land in question was first jointly held by the parties. It is admitted by the complainant himself that originally the land of 5 bighas was partitioned. Initially he claimed that the land fell to his share. In cross-examination he admitted that the land in question had fallen to the share of Bhushu and Mohi Ram. Even otherwise, it was for the prosecution to establish that the land over which the dispute took place belonged to the complainant. The complainant could have no right to object with regard to the removal of paddy crop from the land of any other person. His right to object would arise only if the paddy was sown on his land. This was the first ingredient which should have been proved in this case but the same has not been done. It appears from the evidence that there is some dispute between the parties with regard to the possession of the land. If the land belongs to the defendant they had the right to defend their property. The very genesis of the occurrence as putforth by the complainant does not appear to be true. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused. 3 There is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bailbonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. January 2, 2009 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. ™