IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 314 of 2005 Date of decision: 21.12.2011 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus 1. Laxmi Raman son of Sh. Nek Chand, R/O village Bag, Tehsil Karsog, Distt. Mandi, HP. 2. Jitender Kumar S/O Sh. Nek Chand, R/O Bag, Tehsil Karsog, Distt. Mandi, H.P. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karsog, dated 21.4.2005, vide which he acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 7.3.2004, at about 4.10.P.M., a report was lodged by PW-1 Umesh Kumar accompanied by his mother Gulabo Devi that today at 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 about 11-12.00 Noon, he alongwith his mother had gone to their field for ploughing and when he started ploughing, the respondents came there alongwitn Dandas and knife and he was given beatings with Dandas, whereas his mother was inflicted blows with sharp edged weapon on her hands and she suffered injuries on her fingers. His mother was also given beatings with Danda. Thereafter, the father of the accused, namely, Nek Chand and his mother also came there and asked them to kill the complainant and his mother. On this report, a rapat No. 10 dated 7.3.2011 was registered. The complainant and his mother were medically examined. On completion of the investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court against the respondents except under Section 447 I.P.C. However, on consideration, the learned trial Court framed the charge as detailed above against both the respondents under Section 447 IPC also and tried them leading to their acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the allegations made in the complaint, it is clear that there is no mention of the land or its Khasra Number, in which the occurrence had taken place, so that the Court could infer from the perusal of the revenue record, if any, as to whether the complainant party was entered in possession of the land in question or not. There is nothing on record to show that any steps were taken by the Investigating Officer to take into possession the revenue record pertaining to the disputed land. However, the Investigating Officer PW-8 Krishan Lal has simply 3 stated that copies of the sale deed and stay order were produced by the father of the accused persons and he saw them, but surprisingly he did not place the said copies on record for perusal. He stated that he returned those copies, which were relevant to determine the question as to which of the party was in possession of the suit land on the date of the occurrence. 5. Coming to the evidence, complainant Umesh Kumar stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and stated that the accused were having two Dandas and one screw, though in the complaint it was alleged that the accused was having a knife, which have been subsequently changed to screw. He stated that with the screw, injuries were inflicted on the person of his mother and both the accused also gave them beatings with Dandas. He did not state as to over which part of the body of the complainant himself or his mother, the blows were given with Dandas or the number of blows given with Dandas. In cross-examination, he has admitted that the civil case is going on in between the parties and there is a dispute regarding possession of the land. It was suggested to him that on the day of the occurrence, the accused party was in possession of the land, which was denied by him. In the complaint lodged by him, he had specifically alleged that for sometime, the land had been given to the accused persons for cultivation and when he appeared in Court, he denied the suggestion and he was confronted with the portion of the report lodged by him in this regard, in which he had admitted that the land had been given to the respondents for cultivation for sometime. 4 6. PW-2 Gulabo Devi is the mother of the complainant, who has stated that the accused persons came with Dandas and a sharp edged weapon, with which blow was given on her hand and she was also given beatings with Dandas apart from the fact that Danda blows were also given on the person of the complainant. She also stated that the parents of the accused persons had come there and gave a threat to both these persons, who were arrayed as accused, but no case was made out on investigation as against them. She denied her knowledge in regard to the sharp edged weapon with which blow was given on person. She also did not state the number of injuries inflicted upon her person or that of her son with Dandas and over which portion, these injuries were inflicted. She stated for the first time in the cross-examination that Krishan Lal was also helping them in ploughing, about whom nothing had come in the statement of the complainant and said Krishan Lal PW-8, who partly corroborated the statement that in his presence blows were given and he ran away from the spot. He had admitted that he was helping the complainant party at that time in ploughing the field. 7. From the above discussion of the evidence, it is very clear that the possession was disputed on the spot and a civil case is also going on in betweens parties and that was the reason, the challan was not filed under Section 447 I.P.C. However, the relevant documents were not taken into possession by the Investigating Officer or produced by either of the parties to prove their possession. It appears to be the case of a free fight since it has come up in evidence that grappling took place and some injuries 5 were sustained by the complainant in that process. The evidence led by the prosecution does not establish that the complainant party was in possession of the land in question and it has come up in evidence that the accused party had resisted the possession being forcibly taken by the complainant party and in which grappling may have taken place, but the facts of the case do not prove that these injuries were caused by the accused party in furtherance of their common intention. The final conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution cannot be termed as perverse, calling for an interference by this Court. 8. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged forthwith. December 21, 2011 ( V.K. Ahuja ), (BSS) Judge