IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.684 of 2002 Date of decision : October 9, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Sukh Dev and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 10th June, 2002, whereby respondents, who were tried for offences, under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 506, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Prosecution’s case, as per record, is like this. On 14th February, 1994, when Biasa Devi (PW-2) was taking her cattle through a common path, she was challenged by the respondents and was told that she would not be allowed to use that path. The respondents then started pelting stones. PW-2 Biasa Devi, however, passed through that path and when after leaving the cattle at her place, she went to buy some household goods, she was again challenged, while passing through the path. She was Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… assaulted by the respondents. She raised cries for help. Her daughter-in-law Rekha Kumari came to her rescue. She too was assaulted. Both of them sustained injuries. All the injuries sustained by them were simple in nature, except one of the injuries sustained by Rekha Kumari, which was fracture of her right little finger, which was grievous. 3. Matter was reported to the police on the next following day. Both the injured were got medically examined from PW-1 Dr. S.K. Sharma, who noticed some simple injuries on the persons of the injured and one grievous injury on the person of Rekha Kumari, on account of fracture of her right little finger. 4. Trial Court has acquitted the respondents holding that there was a dispute between the parties over the path and that the respondents claimed that the path formed part of their agricultural land and so they prevented the injured from using the same. It has been admitted by PW-5 Rekha Kumari that there was a dispute between the parties, with regard to the path and that the path passed through the land of one Parshotam, who did not allow them to use that. Her statement suggests that when Parshotam did not allow the user of the path passing through his land, the injured tried to pass through the adjoining land of the respondents. PW-5 Rekha Kumari admitted that the land of the respondents adjoins the land of Parshotam through …3… which the path runs. Also, it appears from the testimony of PW-2 Biasa Devi that PW-5 Rekha Kumari had not been assaulted by any of the respondents, as the witness admitted the suggestion that nobody had caused any injury to her daughter-in-law. PW-5 Rekha Kumari is the daughter-in-law of PW-2 Biasa Devi. In view of the abovestated position, the appeal is dismissed. October 9, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.