1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 104 of 2001 Decided on: 02.05.2008 . ____________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ……..Appellant. Versus Biri Singh & others . ……..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For respondent s : Mr. B. P. Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. ______________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (oral) The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents in the instant appeal, passed by the learned trial court in a case punishable under sections 324, 323 and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Leave to appeal was granted by this court on 15th March, 2001. Now the matter has been finally heard. Prosecution case in brief is that: Durga Singh (PW1) accompanied by his son Gopal Singh, on 12.3.1997 at about 7 a.m. noticed the respondents Vijay Singh and Ram Parkash cutting their wheat crop sown by them in the dam-area. Biri Singh respondent was allegedly watching and guarding the operation with a lathi in his hand. When the complainant warned them respondent Vijay Singh and Ram Parkash gave Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 lathi blow on the head and back of Gopal Singh when he intervened. Vijay Singh is alleged to have given Darati blow on his head. On hearing the cries of the injured, respondents fled away from the spot. Gopal Singh lost his watch. According to the complainant there was an old enmity with the respondents on account of land dispute. The matter was reported to the police. The complainant and his son were medically examined. Durga Singh and Gopal Singh were found to have sustained simple injuries on their person caused by blunt weapon, out of which Gopal Singh was having incised wound just on the left of the saggital suture (parietal region), as indicated in his medico-legal–certificateEx.PW4/A. M.L.C. of Durga Singh is Ex.PW-4/B. Police prepared the site plan Ex.PW-6/A of the alleged place of occurrence. Darati was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW3/A and T-shirt of Gopal Singh vide memo Ex.PW- 3/A. After recording the statements of the witnesses and completing the investigation, case was presented in the court for trial. Finding a prima-facie case under the aforesaid sections charge sheet was framed against each of the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined its witnesses to prove the case and the respondents were also examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. At the end of the trial, respondents were acquitted on the grounds that there are contradictions in the statements of material points and the land on which the wheat crop was allegedly cut was Government land and there was no document put forth to warrant that the complainant party was in possession thereof, therefore, objection of Durga Singh did not find favour with the court that he was in possession 3 thereof. Thus there was no evidence showing the possession over the disputed land. Mr. Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence on record in its right perspective. It is admitted by him that the land, over which the dispute had taken place, was not of the complainant but since the respondents were the aggressors, therefore, they are required to be dealt with in accordance with law. Contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully reappraised the evidence on record. The Complainant himself has admitted right from the very beginning of filing a report against the respondents in this case that their relations with the respondents are not cordial on account of the land dispute. According to the complainant, they were in possession of the Government land and they had sown wheat crop thereupon and it was the respondents who had tried to cut it on the day of alleged occurrence when they were stopped they gave beatings to them. Prem Singh, who was witness to the alleged weapon of offence did not support the prosecution case. Though PW1 Durga Singh and his sons Gopal Singh (PW3) and Purshotam (PW3) have stated that they had sown the wheat crop on the Government land but there is no independent witness to corroborate their version and to prove their possession. When it is not clear as to who was in settled possession of land or who had sown the wheat crop on the disputed land, it cannot be said that the complainant 4 was justified in raising any protest. As far as sharp injuries on the person of PW1 Durga Ram is concerned, according to him it was allegedly caused with sickle whereas PW2 Gopal Singh has stated that he (PW1) was given beatings with a danda only and according to the Doctor this injury can be caused due to fall. Further the very fabric of the case has become doubtful when the complainant Durga Singh PW1 has stated that on seeing cutting wheat they had pelted stones and one of which had hit his son and later corrected himself that the injuries were caused by a danda. This indicates that the complainant party had invited the trouble for themselves. On the critical analysis of the aforesaid evidence, it is manifest that the complainant party was not in possession of the land in dispute and evidence shows that they themselves were the aggressors. The learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record. In these circumstances, there is no perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal, consequently there is also no ground to convert the acquittal into conviction. The appeal filed by the State is dismissed. May 2, 2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (D)