IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 79 of 2002 Reserved on: 05.11.2008 Date of decision: 7.11.2008 Chattar Singh ….. Petitioner Versus Smt. Brahmi Devi & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. M.S. Thakur and Mr. Inderjit Narwal, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Chaudhary vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 5 - State. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner/complainant against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dehra, dated 26.12.2001, vide which respondents No. 1 to 4 have been acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 324/506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 17.9.1998, at about 9.45P.M., a report was lodged with the police by one Chattar Singh that he had purchased land in village Balh and there was a dispute in regard to the path. He had applied for demarcation and on demarcation, it was found that over some part of the land Gian Chand had taken 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 possession and he asked the younger son of Gian Chand that after cutting the crop they should give possession to him, to which they agreed. He further alleged that today the respondents were sowing crop and he asked them that this land belongs to him on demarcation and Smt. Brahmi Devi, respondent, gave him abuses and her son Rajesh asked him to show the boundary and when he went to show them the boundary, they caught hold of him and respondent Brahmi Devi inflicted a darati blow over his head and also gave a threat to take his life. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court who tried respondents No. 1 to 4 leading to their acquittal. No appeal appears to have been filed by the State of H.P. and the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant, aggrieved by the judgment of the acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that there is no dispute in regard to possession. However, a perusal of report Ext. PW2/A clearly shows that the dispute was with regard to possession and the complainant had requested the accused persons to hand over the possession to him after cutting the crop, but still they were cultivating his land to which he objected. This fact also stands proved from the statement of the complainant as PW-2, who has stated that on demarcation, the land was found to be belonging to him and he had asked them to leave the possession after cutting the crop. He stated that they were again ploughing the field to which he objected and, therefore, it is apparent from the statement of the complainant and the report lodged by him that the dispute was basically in regard to possession. The complainant objected to ploughing of the field by respondents No. 1 to 4 and, 3 therefore, the present dispute took place. In his statement, he has no where stated about the threat given to him at that time and has only stated about the abuses given by Smt. Brahmi Devi and blow with darati inflicted upon him by Smt. Brahmi Devi. PW-2 Chattar Singh had alleged in the complaint that one Roshan Lal was present at the spot who has been examined as PW-3, who stated about the blow with darati given by Smt. Brahmi Devi. However, in his cross-examination, he clearly stated that he has seen the accused persons in possession of that land and cultivating the same and today also, they are still in possession of the land. He stated that quarrel was taking place in the disputed land, but he had not gone to the land. His presence at the spot also does not appear to be natural since his house is at a distance of 1 K.M. from the place of occurrence and according to his statement, he had gone to the spot to purchase Bidis. He heard the noise and found that Chattar Singh was being given beatings by the respondents. Thus, the statement of this witness also shows that the dispute was in regard to possession which was of respondents No. 1 to 4 on the day of the occurrence. The complainant Chattar Singh had alleged as PW-2 that the land is not in his name but in the name of his mother, which is still joint and partition has not taken place. He stated that he cannot produce the application for partition but can produce the demarcation report, which was not produced by him. He himself also admitted that the respondents are in possession of the disputed land. He admitted about the houses of two persons near the place of occurrence, but there is nothing on record to show that they were present at the spot. He had admitted that the blood had oozed out and had fallen on his clothes, which were not taken into possession. In case the said clothes have been taken into possession, it would have been a corroborative piece of evidence in favour of the complainant and as against respondents No. 1 to 4. 4 Apart from the above, it is clear that the complainant has stated that he suffered one injury only with a darati at the hands of Brahmi Devi, respondent, but no other injuries were stated to have been given by any person. But the Medical Officer PW-1 Dr. B.S. Rama has stated that the patient complained of pain on the body and neck, but no visible external injury was seen. He clearly stated in cross-examination that Injury No. 1 cannot be caused by a single blow of darati. Whereas, the case of the prosecution was that only one blow was inflicted by darati. Therefore, the medical evidence does not corroborate the statement of the complainant. Keeping in view the contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution case, the learned trial Court had concluded that the guilt of respondents No. 1 to 4 was not established beyond any reasonable doubt. Those findings cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the revision petition filed by the petitioner, which is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by respondents No. 1 to 4 shall stand discharged. V.K. Ahuja ) November 7, 2008 Judge (BSS)