IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 415/2010 Date of decision: 4.7.2011 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Sanjay Kumar and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal Addl. Advocate General. For the respondents : Respondent with Mr. Ashok Thakur, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No. 127/II of 2008 dated 17.4.2010 under Sections 451, 323, 325 read with Section 34 Indian Penal code. 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 3. In short, prosecution story can be stated thus. It is alleged that on the night on 2.12.2007, respondents Sanjay Kumar, Ramesh Chand entered the court-yard of 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? - 2 - the complainant Yog Raj and demolished his danga. The matter in writing was reported to the Panchayat concerned. On 22.12.2007, Gram Panchayat called both the above named respondents but they were let off after giving some warning. On the same day, during the night around 10 p.m. when the complainant and his family were sleeping in their house, they heard some noise. The complainant came outside in the court-yard. He saw respondents out side. They pounced upon him. Respondents Praveen Kumar and Nitu gave kick blows and Sanjay Kumar respondent fisticuffed him. He was also hit with the belt. The complainant raised alarm. His wife along with his neighbours, PW Vinod Kumar and Bhajan Singh (not examined) came out but the respondents fled- away. 4. The matter was reported to police in terms of FIR Ext. PW5/B. Thereafter the police picked-up the investigation, visited the spot, prepared the site plan and got the complainant medically examined. They also took into possession stones Ext. P1 and belt Ext. P2 from the spot and after recording the statements, found involvement of the respondent. Thereafter the challan was presented against the respondents in the Court for their trial. - 3 - 5. Finding a prima facie case, respondents were accordingly charge sheeted. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the end of the trial, they were acquitted. 6. At the very outset, I would like to say that as per the case of the prosecution on hearing alarm raised by the complainant, Vinod Kumar and Bhajan Singh neighbours of the complainant came out, on seeing them, respondents fled-away. None of these witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. The entire prosecution case hinges upon the statements of complainant PW2 Yog Raj, his wife PW4, Shrestha Devi and Vinod Kumar. The complaint which is alleged to have been made to Panchayat, did not find light of the day during the trial. Bhajan Singh witness was not examined. The demarcation of the disputed land over which the danga which is claimed to be owned by the complainant was not conducted. None of the members of the Panchayat to corroborate the version of complainant were examined. 7. PW3 admitted that the respondents are the residents of a distant village. The incident is alleged to have taken place only 13 kilometers away from Police Post, Bhawarna. There has been delay in lodging the report against the respondents. Vinod Kumar admitted having accompanied the complainant to lodge the - 4 - report. He further admitted that when he reached the spot, the other family members of the complainant had also come there. PW4 Shrestha Devi stated that the house of PW3 Vinod Kumar is at a distance of 60 meters from their house abutting to the house of Bishan Dass. On scrutiny of evidence, Vinod Kumar witness appears to be an interested witness. 8. PW2 complainant Yog Raj denied the defence raised that he sustained injuries on collapsing the danga itself. He admitted that Sanjay Kumar respondent is employed in the Army and Pritam Singh respondent is in the Railway Department. He also admitted that the house of the respondent is far-away from their house. 9. Pertinently, the perusal of the report Ext. PW5/A reveals that the danga in question was alleged to have been removed 20 days earlier from the alleged incident on 2.12.2007, by the respondent whereas the complainant stated that it was removed on the day of the alleged incident, i.e., on 22.12.2007, which was not the case of the complainant at the time of the lodging the FIR. As per initial report, respondents did not remove any wall on 22.12.2007. The belt which is alleged to have recovered from the spot is not connected with any of the accused persons. The whole complexion of the evidence gives an impression that the story propounded by the complainant - 5 - is only made to square vendetta and in fact, no such incident, as stated by the complainant party has taken place, thus there is no cogent evidence substantiating charge beyond reasonable doubt. 10. Therefore, the acquittal of the respondents cannot be interfered with. The appeal is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed. 11. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceeding of this case. July 4, 2011 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge.