IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 172 of 2001. Reserved on: 07.01.2008. Decided on: 10.01.2008. State of Himachal Pradesh. … … Appellant. Versus Madho Ram & Others. … … Accused/Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant-State: Mr. M.A. Khan and Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the Accused/Respondents: Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The respondents were prosecuted in Criminal case No.460-1 of 1995 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, District Kullu under Sections 324/325/323/506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and were acquitted on 31.8.1999. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.8.1999. The facts which can be culled out from the judgment of the trial Court are that the land measuring 16 biswas comprising Khatauni No.792/652/1116 is owned by the complainant, Kamal Kant and his three brothers. On 2.7.1995 at about 12.15 P.M. the complainant went to the aforesaid land alongwith his brothers and on reaching the land Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - they found that accused Madho and his sons, Hukam Ram, Ramesh, Ashwani and Smt. Shanti Devi etc. unlawfully digging and breaking the same. When the complainant objected by mentioning to the accused that civil suit regarding the land in dispute is pending in the Court of law and they should not interfere in the suit land, they became furious and started giving beating to him and his brothers with dandas and draties. Consequently, the report was lodged with the police and F.I.R. was registered. The matter was investigated and on completion of the investigation, the challan was put up in the Court. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined as many as 8 witnesses. The respondents-accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court acquitted the respondents on 31.8.1999. The learned Deputy Advocate Generals had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondents- accused. Mr. Raman Sethi had supported the judgment dated 31.8.1999. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. PW-1 Kamal Kant had stated that he sustained injuries on his head and his brothers also sustained injuries. He has shown his ignorance with regard to the injuries received by Smt. Vidya Devi, Madho Ram, Hukam Ram, Shanti Devi and Krishan Lal. PW-2 Sushil Kant is the brother of the complainant. He has stated that the beatings were given to him by danda by the accused. He sustained injuries on the head and finger of the hand. PW-3 Vijay Kumar says that on hearing the noise he came from his house and found the accused persons sowing the suit land which is owned by Kamal Mahant. In the fight Kamal Mahant and his brothers were injured. PW-4 Smt. Neelam is the wife of Kamal Kant (complainant). The sum and substance of her statement - 3 - was that the accused were forcibly trying to take possession of the disputed land. She has also stated that Madho Ram gave danda blow on the head of Shri Kamal Kant from behind. PW-5, Pooja Sharma is the niece of complainant. She has stated that accused Madho was having danda Ex.P-1 in his hand and her uncles had sustained injuries. PW-6 Mahant Ram has stated that he has recorded the rapat Ex.PW-1/A on the report of Kamal Kant. PW-8 Karam Chand has investigated the case. The complainant party has failed to produce any evidence showing their possession over the disputed land as co-owners. To the contrary, PW-8, Karam Chand (Investigating Officer) had stated that when he had investigated a case under Section 145 Cr.P.C., he found possession of the accused Madho Ram on the disputed land. In the F.I.R. it is stated that accused persons had given beatings to complainant Kamal Kant and his brothers with sickles and dandas. PW-1, Kamal Kant appeared in the witness box. He did not say that the accused persons gave him beatings with dandas or sickles. The recovery of danda Ex.P-1 is also doubtful in view of the statement of PW-1, Kamal Kant (complainant). The police has not taken any sickle into possession though injuries received by Kamal Kant (complainant) and his brother Sushil Kant had been caused to sharp edged weapon. The weapon of offence was required to be taken into possession during the course of investigation. The prosecution has also not explained the injuries received by the accused persons as per M.L.Cs. Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5. There are material contradictions in the statements made by the PWs. Vis-à-vis the contents of the F.I.R. Since the recovery of danda Ex.P-1 is also doubtful and the injuries caused to the accused persons - 4 - have not been explained by the prosecution, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused-respondents stand discharged. January 10, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma), (sck) Judge.