Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.10 of 2011. Date of Decision: August 27, 2011. Harminder Singh. …… Appellant. Versus Harmesh and others ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant : Mr. J.S. Bagga, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 16. Mr.P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General for respondent No.17. Surinder Singh, J (oral) : The complainant had filed a private complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (1), Una. He committed it for the trial to the Special Judge, Una, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 323, 325, 397, 506 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as such notice was issued to the Public Prosecutor and the complainant was represented by the State of Himachal Pradesh. - 2 - 2. Respondents were accordingly charge- sheeted, tried and acquitted by the learned Special Judge, for the offences aforesaid. The State did not find it a case to file an appeal, as such, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant Harminder Singh under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the acquittal of the respondents. 3. Pre-admission notice was issued to respondents No.1 to 16 and Shri Naresh Kumar Thakur, learned counsel put in appearance for them. Record of the learned trial Court was also received and the matter heard. 4. It is alleged that the appellant, hereinafter referred to as the complainant had entered into an agreement to purchase the land from Shri Parmodh Singh s/o Shri Ram Kishan in his capacity as General Power of Attorney of his father Ram Kishan ( respondent No.5) for a consideration of `1,50,000/-, which was paid to him. Only the sale deed remained to be executed. It is alleged that the possession of the land was also delivered to the complainant on 23.2.1998, but the day of the - 3 - agreement to sell, the complainant claimed that ever-since its possession was transferred to him, he cultivated the land, but the registration of the deed could not be effected as the vendor had put him off on one pretext or the other thinking that he intended to sell it to some other person, thus filed a civil suit for specific performance and the prayer was also made to attach the property. Interim order of status quo was issued. 5. Coming to know about the aforesaid facts, on 29.9.2002, when the complainant alongwith his son and other woman of his family went to collect the maize crop sown on the disputed land, the respondents i.e. the male members came in the tractor trolley, whereas the woman respondents came on foot under the command of respondent Sonia, who was armed with a knife using provocative language and insulted the complainant party by the name of their caste in the local language. Respondent Hamresh tried to crush the complainant under the wheels of the tractor, but he escaped. Thereafter accused Didar Singh attacked and the other - 4 - accused persons gave the beatings to him with ‘Lathi’ (stick) blow with the result complainant and his sons Harbans Singh and Inder Pal Singh, who intervened also sustained injuries. All the family members were beaten up mercilessly. Thereafter, they were taken to the hospital, where they remained admitted for couple of days. 6. The matter was reported to the police by them, on the ground that the complainant party had right to take the possession of the land in question from them and they were given mercilessly beatings. Respondents have also lodged FIR against the complainant party. 7. It is pertinent to note that the complainant did not produce on record any document showing his possession over the suit land. On his complaint, police report was sought by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It came in the evidence that the civil suit filed by the complainant was dismissed on 28.4.2006 against which he filed an appeal. The Civil Court held that the complainant was not in - 5 - possession of the suit land in any manner, even the revenue record did not support the complainant. The agreement Ext.PW1/A which was placed in the civil suit which also did not show that the possession of the suit land was handed over to the complainant party, as such injunction was also declined to him and the First Appellate Court taking note of above facts did not interfere in the findings arrived at by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). The complainant also banked upon the oral evidence of PWs 3 and 4 for proving possession, which in the above background is not sufficient to hold his possession. The respondents’ case was that Smt. Sonia had sown maize crop in the suit land, which the complainant party used to take it forcibly and the respondents prevented them from doing so. They were given beatings by the complainant party and respondent Brahm Singh had sustained the grievous injuries on his person, which fact stands substantiated by PW7 Dr. Umesh Gautam. According to him, there was a fracture on skull in Pareto temporal region. - 6 - 8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, when the complainant party failed to prove their possession over the suit land in the civil suit as well as by leading cogent evidence before the learned trial Court and also the fact that the complainant party belong to “Surehra” caste, which was a Scheduled Caste as per Articles 341 of the Constitution of India, offences charged cannot be said to have been made out. Learned trial Court also rightly came to the conclusion also on account of delay in filing the complainant that there was possibility of concoction, fabrication and false implication of the respondents in the above backdrop. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed in limine. 9. The matter stands disposed of. Send down the records. August 27, 2011. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.