IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL RADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.P (M) No. 240/2011 Date of decision: 13. 6. 2011 State of H.P. ….Petitioner Versus Attar Singh & others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent : None. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) The State has sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code arising out of FIR No. 94/2005 decided by the learned trial Court on 22.12.2010. 2. Notice of this application was issued to the respondents but none appeared. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? - 2 - 3. Record of the learned trial Court has been received and heard the learned Additional Advocate General. 4. Prosecution case is that on 10.5.2005 Gian Chand (PW1) was putting the fertilizer in his fields along with his wife PW2 Smt. Godo Devi. Adjoining to his fields, there are the fields of the respondents. About a year back, the complainant party had taken demarcation of their land and boundaries marks were fixed. It is alleged that the respondents did not adhere to the boundary marks and proclaimed that they would cultivate the adjoining fields of the complainant. When complainant Gian Chand objected to it, respondents picked-up a quarrel with him. They abused and fisticuffed him. His wife Godo Devi intervened but she was also beaten up. Both of them received injuries and lodged report in the Police Station. They were subjected to the medical examination. Their injuries were also X-rayed. As per opinion of the doctor, there was a fracture of right knee of Gian Chand. 5. On the same day, respondent Krishna Devi had also lodged report in the Police Station, alleging that the complainant party came armed with sickle and lathis and gave beatings to them. - 3 - But the police had only filed the challan against the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code but on the report of Krishna Devi, they presented the challan under Section 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the complainant party. 6. Respondents were acquitted for the offences aforesaid on the ground that the material witness was not examined and the complainant party did not come out with true facts of the case. 7. The above narrated facts made it clear that some quarrel had taken place at the relevant date and time but the story as propounded appears to be doubtful. The complainant as PW1 stated that there was no water channel or any natural boundary but permanent boundaries were raised. Whereas the case of the respondents is that the lands of both the parties are separated by a water channel (Kuhal). The respondents are claiming that they were working in their fields which fell on one side of the water Kuhal to which the complainant party claimed to be there own. 8. The defence taken is probablized by PW8 Investigating Officer. He had prepared the site plan - 4 - Ext. PW8/A wherein nullah (water channel) has been shown in existence between the lands of both the parties. The denial of this fact raises a doubt on the truthfulness of the version given by the complainant. There is another circumstance which raises a doubt on the probity of the prosecution case. It has been stated by PW1 Gian Chand that after the incident he had approached Kewal Kumar President of the Panchayat and narrated about the said incident to him. Even Kewal Kumar aforesaid has not been examined to lend strength to his version. 9. Further, PW2 Godo Devi stated about the presence of Pritam Singh, her son-in-law on the spot which fact has not been deposed by her husband PW1. Therefore, his presence and that of Shri Ram Saran and Onkar who are alleged to have relieved the complainant party from the clutches of the respondents becomes doubtful. 10. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is also not clear from the evidence as to who was the aggressor. Therefore, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are borne out from the record which requires no interference. As such the leave to appeal is declined. - 5 - 11. Record of the learned trial Court be returned. The matter stands disposed of. June 13, 2011 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge