1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 655 of 2000. Decided on: July 04, 2008 ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Malik Raj and others. …..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral): The respondents were put on trial under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegations that on 8.3.1995 at about 8.30 a.m., the respondents snatched the tools from the labour of the complainant Sardara Singh, who had visited the spot to cut the khair trees. One of the labourer informed Sardara Singh, who visited the spot. The respondents are from one family and are the sons and daughter of Shanker Dass. The respondents claimed the Khair trees to be their own. After some hotly exchange of words, the respondent Parmeshwari Devi threw chilly powder in the eyes of Sardara Singh complainant and others attacked on the complainant and his labour with sharp edged weapons and dandas. PW1 Ramesh Kumar, PW2 Darshan Kumar and PW3 Nirmala Devi intervened, but they were also given beatings. All sustained simple injuries Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 except Darshan Kumar also sustained a fracture of the parietal bone of his head. Complainant Sardara Singh informed the police and on his statement, FIR Ex.PW12/A was lodged in the police station, under the aforesaid sections. The police visited the spot. Sardara Singh, Ramesh Kumar, Darshan Kumar and Smt. Nirmala Devi were got medically examined. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plans Exts.PW15/A & B and took into possession Ex.P8 Falla (spade) vide memo Ex.PW5/A. Chilly powder Ex.P3, broken bangles vide memo Ex.PW2/A, one iron khunti vide memo Ex.PW4/C and Danda Ex.P1 was also recovered pursuant to the statement of Rukmani Devi respondent vide memo Ex.PW4/B. Blood stained clothes of Sardara Singh were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW9/A. After completing the investigation, police presented the challan under the aforesaid sections against the respondents in the court for trial. The respondents were charge-sheeted. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their case in the cross-examination of the witnesses was that the complainant party wanted to cut the khair trees forcibly from the land owned by them, which was also a subject matter of civil litigation in which stay was obtained by the respondents with respect to the felling of the trees against the complainant. 3 The prosecution heavily relied upon the statements of PW1 Ramesh Kumar, PW2 Darshan Kumar and PW3 Nirmala Devi besides PW 13 Mehar Singh. Sardara Singh died before his recording the statement in the court. After hearing the parties and upon going through the evidence on record, the learned trial court acquitted the respondents, on the grounds that the evidence of the prosecution is self contradictory and accused had also sustained the grievous injuries, there were cross-cases, therefore, the prosecution case did not inspire confidence. Against the impugned judgment of acquittal, the state has filed the instant appeal. Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer for the State has vehemently argued that the injured witnesses PWs 1, 2 and 3 namely Ramesh Kumar, Darshan Kumar and Smt. Nirmala Devi have supported the prosecution case and the learned trial court had wrongly ignored their evidence. On the other hand, Shri Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the findings of the learned trial court, on the basis of which respondents were acquitted. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case. The main allegation of the prosecution against the respondents is that the labour of Sardara Singh complainant were not allowed to cut the Khair trees from a piece of land, 4 which according to the respondents belonged to them and the complainant was restrained by the civil court to cut the trees, which fact also stands admitted by PW1 Ramesh Kumar and PW2 Darshan Kumar. PWs 1,2 and 3 namely, Ramesh Kumar, Darshan Kumar and Nirmala Devi were the interveners. Though the prosecution had tried to establish that Sardara Singh and his labour were within their right to cut trees from the land in question, but no efforts were made to demarcate the land in order to know to whom it belonged. No valid orders for felling of the trees from the land of respondents were produced. The prosecution also did not produce any revenue record. From the evidence adduced, it appears that the complainant party were the aggressor. Further the recovery of chilly powder etc. does not inspire confidence for the reasons that during the medical examination of Sardara Singh complainant, no remnant of the chilly power were found in his eyes nor he complained of any itching. PW2 Darshan Kumar, who was one of the witnesses of the recovery, has stated in his cross-examination that the police did not take these items in possession in his presence. PW4 Jagdish is the real brother of PW Nirmala, but did not support the prosecution version. He also stated that Sardara Singh wanted to cut the tree standing on the land of the respondents. PW3 Nirmala Devi has stated that the complainant had called the police and he threatened that he would cut the trees standing on the land in dispute. 5 PW13 Mehar Singh has stated that the respondents had given beatings to the Contractor Shimara Singh and this fact is also deposed by PW14 Sunita Devi, but there is no such person in the name of Shimara Singh. The whole evidence of the prosecution is full of contradictions and leaves us in lurch. In view of the above discussion, in my opinion, the view taken by the learned trial court for acquitting the accused- respondents is reasonable and is borne out from the record. As such, I do not find anything to interfere in the impugned judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned trial court and in result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh), Judge. July 04, 2008. (Pds)