IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 155 of 2002 Date of Decision: 12.12.2008 Baba Mohan Dass …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. & others .. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner(s): Mr.Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr.R.M.Bisht, Dy.A.G. for R-1. Mr.Inderjit Singh Narwal, counsel for Respondents 2 to 5. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This Revision Petition on behalf of the complainant is directed against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chopal dated 26.11.2001 whereby he has acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506 IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 9.9.2000 at about 3.30 p.m. the accused persons threw stones on the complainant who is a ‘Sadhu’ and thereafter forcibly occupied the hut which was earlier in the possession of the complainant and was being used by him as his residence. FIR was lodged on the next day i.e. 10.9.2000 by the complainant-petitioner. 2 After investigation, challan was filed and the accused were summoned. They pleaded not guilty. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 8 witnesses. PW-1 Smt.Murtu Devi, PW-2 Smt.Satya Devi, PW-4 Smt.Sheela Devi and PW-8 Shri Bija Ram are the main witnesses in respect of the occurrence. The complainant was examined as PW-5. According to the complainant, after he ran away the accused used the lock which he himself used to use to lock the hut and locked the same. He was informed about this on the next day by Bija Ram. Bija Ram has not supported this version of the complainant. He was declared hostile. Similarly, PW-1 Murtu Devi has clearly stated that the complainant of his own accord left the village due to the fact that she had threatened him that she would lodge a complaint against him for assaulting her. All the witnesses in the case turned hostile and did not support the complainant. According to the prosecution, the lock with which the accused had locked the premises was taken into possession. When this lock was shown to the complainant in Court he did not identify this lock as the one belonging to him. This also belies his version that he was informed by Bija Ram that accused has used his lock to lock the premises. In view of the fact that none of the independent witnesses supported the case of the complainant, the trial Court has 3 rightly acquitted the accused. This judgment calls for no interference. Hence, the Revision Petition is rejected. December 12, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. PV