HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No. : 386 of 1998 Decided on: 1.7.2010 State of H.P. ……… Appellant. Versus Guljari Lal and others ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr.Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, dated 6.3.1998, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 323, 325 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 8.7.1994, a rapat was lodged by one Batan Chand with the police at about 9.30 p.m. that during day time, at about 6.30 p.m., he was present in his courtyard and was tethering his cattle in the presence of his daughter Lachmi Devi. All the accused persons came there and started giving beatings to him with kicks and fist blows. On hearing his cries, his brothers-in-law Madan Lal and Batan Chand came to the spot to rescue him from the clutches of the accused. Respondent Guljari Lal gave a stick blow and he sustained injury on the ring finger of his right hand. He further ___________________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - alleged that while leaving the place, respondents also threatened to kill the complainant. On this, a rapat was registered and after medical examination of the complainant, the case was registered. After investigation, the challan was filed under the above Sections before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondents, leading to their acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the complainant Batan Chand, while he appeared as PW-4, has reiterated the assertions made in the rapat lodged by him with the police, in which he had given the details of the blows given by the respondents with kicks, fists and also about the stick blow given by respondent Guljari Lal. These assertions have been corroborated by PW-6 Lachmi Devi, daughter of the complainant, and by PW-5 Batan Singh, who is related to the complainant. However, these statements were not relied upon by the learned trial Court observing that the eye witness examined in the case, namely, PW-7 Das Ram has not supported the prosecution story. It was observed by the learned trial Court that despite there being a house of one Nikky Ram in the neighbourhood and also the fact that the passage adjoining the house was a busy one, no independent witness has been examined and thus the learned trial Court had disbelieved the version of the aforesaid three witnesses. However, it has come up in evidence that there is a bona fide civil dispute in between the parties in regard to the possession of the land possessed by Kala Ram, who is alleged - 3 - to have executed a Will in favour of the complainant, which has been challenged by his other heirs. 5. Thus, in view of the civil litigation going on in between the parties and the fact that no witness had corroborated the prosecution story, the learned trial Court had come to the conclusion that the case of the prosecution has not been proved. The said findings recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 6. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. July 1, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge