IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 76 of 2004 Date of Decision: 29.6.2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus. Krishan Chand and another …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 28.8.2003 delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Baijnath, District Kangra in Criminal Case No.26-II/2002 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 6.10.2001 at about 1.30 p.m complainant Kusam Lata was present at her house in village Sudhala. It is not disputed that at the relevant time the holdings of the husband of the 2 complainant and the accused were joint and had not been partitioned till that date. According to the complainant, accused Krishan Chand and his wife Gaytri Devi came to her house at about 1.30 p.m on 6.10.2001 and uprooted the fencing in front of the house. When she objected both the accused abused her. After some time the two accused came to the house of the complainant abused her and accused Krishan Chand beat her with a chappal and accused Gaytri Devi had caught hold of the complainant from her hair. The incident was allegedly witnessed Godan Devi, Malkan Devi and Vidya Devi. F.I.R. in this connection was lodged with the police on 9.10.2001 at 5.00 p.m i.e. more than three days after the incident. After investigation of the case challan was filed against the accused. The accused have been acquitted. Hence the present appeal by the State. 3. From the material on record there are some facts which stand established. Firstly, that the relations between the parties were not at all cordial and they were in fact inimical to each other. Secondly, that the holdings of the parties were joint and in later partition proceedings it was found that the complainant side had possession of more land than fell to its share. Thirdly, that in Cr.Case No. 253-II/99, the husband, mother-in-law and brother- 3 in-law of the complainant had been convicted for having beaten the accused Krishan Chand and his wife Gaytri Devi. This judgement was delivered on 30.03.2001. The evidence of the prosecution has to be examined in this light. The accused have not denied that the fence was damaged but according to the accused they were carrying a bed-box to their house and since the path is narrow this bed-box got entangled with the fence and the fence got damaged, which led to a quarrel. Since the quarrel is admitted, the main question is who was the aggressor party? 4. On behalf of the prosecution the complainant appeared as PW-1 and was supported by PW-2 Godan Devi and PW-3 Malkan Devi. Both these witnesses are closely related to the complainant. It has come in evidence that the relations between the parties are inimical. It has come in evidence that many people had gathered at the spot. If a large number of people had gathered at the spot it is not understood why the persons who were closely related to the complainant only were associated with the investigation and the others were not examined. Therefore, in such an eventuality it was imperative for the prosecution to have examined independent witnesses. This has not been done. 4 5. There is also unexplained delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R. No satisfactory explanation has been given as to why the F.I.R. was not lodged on 6.10.2001 and the matter was reported to the police on 9.10.2001. The complainant has not given any explanation for this delay. Therefore, the possibility of this time having been utilized to falsely implicate the respondents with whom the relations were already inimical cannot be ruled out. 6. On these grounds the learned trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. I find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. 29th June, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.