1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 618 of 2001 Date of Decision: 01.10.2008 ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant. Versus Pritam Singh & others Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1?.No. For the appellant : Sh. J. S. Guleria, Advocate. For the respondent : Sh. Ashutosh Burathoki, Advocate. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. Respondents were tried and acquitted of the offences, punishable under sections 147, 148, 448 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned trial court in Criminal Case No. 41-II/2000 vide its judgment dated 26th June, 2001. The case of the prosecution case has been that Paras Ram alias Parsi father of the complainant Onkar Singh, was running a shop in Khasra No.244 in village Manei, Shahpur. According to the complainant, his father died in the year 1994 and thereafter the shop remained closed. Thereafter, the Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 complainant visited the place and tried to repair the shop in question in the year 2000 but the respondents objected to it. On 13.2.2000 at about 8 a.m. the respondents came to the spot and demolished the said shop. The occurrence was witnessed by PW5 S/Shri Churhu Ram, Chamaru Ram, Shanti Namberdar, Madan, PW4 Rashpal, Kartar and Satish, adjoining shopkeepers of the shop in question. The matter was reported to the police and FIR Ex.PW1/B was recorded on the statement of Onkar Singh. Police visited the spot, prepared the site plan Ex.PW9/A, seized the debris of the shop vide memo Ex.PW1/A. Spot was photographed and the police also took into possession the revenue record i.e. Jamabandi Ex.PW6/A & copy of Akas Shajra Ex.PW6/B. After recording statements of the witnesses, challan was prepared and presented in the court for trial of the respondents under the aforesaid sections. The respondents were charge-sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined the complainant Onkar Singh, (PW1), Nirmal Singh (PW2), Girdhari Lal (PW3), Rachhpal (PW4), Chuhru Ram (PW5), Vijay Singh (PW6), Head Constable 3 Mohinder Singh (PW7), Kewal Singh (PW8) and Shyam Prasad (PW9) the Investing Officer. The respondents were also examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In defence they produced a copy of the Jamabandi of the adjoining khasra No. 243 for the year 1998-99 (Ex.DA), wherein the respondents have been recorded, as owner in possession of the land in dispute. At the end of the trial, the respondents were acquitted by the learned trial Magistrate, on the ground that the prosecution evidence did not inspire confidence and further that Pradhan Girdhari Lal (PW3) testified that the shop had already collapsed much earlier to the alleged incident, therefore, in view of the contradictory evidence and also the fact that the respondents had adjoining land, owned and possessed by them, demarcation whereof was not conducted. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove its case against the respondents. Consequently, the respondents were acquitted of the offences by giving them benefit of doubt. State felt aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, as such filed the instant appeal on the ground that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in the right perspective but at the same time has 4 set unrealistic standards to evaluate the direct and cogent prosecution evidence. Shri J.S.Guleria, learned Law Officer, has forcefully argued that the statement of the complainant coupled with the statements of the alleged eye witnesses prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Contra, Shri Ashutosh Burathoki, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal. I have re-appraised the evidence on record and have given due consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. As already stated above, the shop in question remained locked and abandoned for about six years. According to the case of the prosecution, the shop in question was standing on Khasra No.244, which is also owned by the respondents and the father of the complainant has been recorded as non- occupancy tenant over a portion of it. It is the case of the complainant that on 13.2.2000 the respondents came to the spot and demolished the said structure of the shop in the presence of the eye witnesses, out of which Rachpal (PW4) and Churhu Ram (PW5) were examined. According to PW4 Rachpal, in the morning he saw that shop in question was already demolished 5 and the debris was being removed by the respondents, whereas PW5 Churhu Ram has not named the respondents in demolishing the shop but according to him there were two ladies and three male persons, who were uprooting the said shop, which was made of Kacha Bricks and having slates on the top. Girdhari Lal (PW3) Pradhan has shattered their version and testified that in the morning respondent Milkhi Ram came to him and informed that Onkar Singh complainant had demolished the shop in question and after some time the complainant also approached him and alleged that the shop in question was demolished by the respondents. He advised him to get the land demarcated, which means that both the parties had some boundary dispute because according to the complainant he was in the process of repairing/reconstructing the shop, which was objected to by the respondents. But in the cross- examination he has made an important statement which goes to the root of the case that the said shop was located by the side of the road, which had collapsed itself many years ago and was in a dilapidated condition. From the evidence on record, there are two views deducible. It is well settled law that if there are two views made out from the evidence on record, the benefit of the view favourable to the 6 accused has to be given to him. Since the evidence on record is contradictory and the prosecution has failed to prove the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents. Thus the view taken by the learned trial Magistrate, in favour of the respondents reasonable and is borne out from the evidence on record which cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Send down the records. October 1, 2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (D)