HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No. : 551 of 2003 Decided on: 16.7.2010 State of H.P. ……… Appellant. Versus Ajit Singh @ Piar Singh and others ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Mehar Chand, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.2, Palampur, dated 27.6.2003, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 323, 325, 427 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 17.3.2000, at about 9.30 a.m., a report was lodged with the police by one Tripta Devi accompanied by her Jethani Bimla Devi that she was present in her house at Jaisingh Pur. Adjoining to her house, there is a house of her Jeth Ajit Singh and he is inimical with her in regard to partition of the land. 4-5 days ago, she had constructed a wall in her courtyard. Today when she was present in her house at 8.30 a.m., her Jeth gave her abuses that she should come out and ___________________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - when she came out, her Jeth Ajit Singh, his brother-in-law Surender Singh, Ambika and Ritu were dismantling the wall. When she enquired as to why they were dismantling the wall since the land belonged to her, they dismantled the wall and threw the bricks here and there and thereafter her Jeth and his brother-in-law gave her beatings with bricks. When her Jethani Bimla Devi came to the spot and tried to rescue her, she was also given beatings with legs and fists. The complainant further alleged that she as well as her Jethani suffered injuries on various parts of their body and she lodged the report in this regard. On this report, a case was registered subsequently and after medical examination of both the injured and on completion of the investigation, the challan was filed 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 persons named in the FIR were Ajit Singh, respondent No.1, Surender Kumar, respondent No.3, Ambika, Ritu etc. There was no mention of the name of Brij Bala, wife of Ajit Singh, who has also been made an accused subsequently. There is also no specific mention that any part was played by Ambika and Ritu in dismantling the wall, though allegations were also made as against them. A perusal of the statement of the complainant as PW-1 shows that she, for the first time, stated that Brij Bala i.e. respondent No.2, who is the wife of respondent No.1 Ajit - 3 - Singh, also came there and gave abuses to her and abuses were also given by her daughters, which fact was never alleged in the report lodged with the police. It was further stated by her that all the accused persons gave beatings to her with bricks, meaning thereby that the beatings were also given by Brij Bala, respondent No.2. She was confronted in this regard with her report lodged by her with the police. Therefore, it is clear that attempts are made by the complainant to rope in as many accused persons as possible and the name of one other relative of respondent No.1 was also introduced subsequently. Thus, the version given by her becomes doubtful and has to be scrutinized with more care and caution. It is also clear that the attempts were made by the complainant to implicate respondent No.2, wife of respondent No.1 also, though there were no allegations in the report lodged with the police for the first time. 5. PW-2 Bimla Devi, Jethani of the complainant, has stated that she heard a noise and went to the spot and found that the accused persons and Brij Bala etc. were dismantling the wall raised by Tripta Devi. She also introduced the name of Brij Bala, though in the report there is no mention of Brij Bala being present at the spot or having inflicted the blows over the person of Tripta Devi. She further stated that she was given beatings with legs and she suffered injuries on her hand, arm etc. She further stated for the first time that the mason Parkash rescued both of them, which was neither alleged in the report nor it was so stated by PW-1 Tripta Devi, complainant, in her statement - 4 - in court. She admitted that the land belonging to the complainant and her is joint. Thus, there appears to be a land dispute in between the complainant party and the accused, for which a civil litigation is going on, which fact has come on record. 6. PW-5 Om Parkash, mason, about which a reference has been made by PW-2 Bimla Devi in her statement, has turned hostile and stated that no occurrence took place in his presence. He was declared hostile and nothing could be extracted in his statement to show that he has deposed falsely or had any reason to favour the accused persons in preference to the complainant party, who had employed him. 7. PW-7 Premi Devi, who is the mother of the complainant introduced subsequently, is not material since no witness has stated about her presence at that time and her presence was not established from the evidence led by the prosecution. 8. Coming to the medical evidence, there were contusions, abrasions and lacerated would on the person of the complainant Tripta Devi. However, the Medical Officer has not opined that the injuries were possible with bricks. PW-2 Bimla Devi had also suffered injuries, which were contusions and abrasions. The Medical Officer has not specified that these injuries are possible with legs and fists. 8. From the above discussion of the evidence, it is clear that the relations in between the parties were strained. In view of the contradictions in the statements of - 5 - the prosecution witnesses, the learned trial Court had come to a conclusion that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case. It is other thing that another view could have been taken but the view taken by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt cannot be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 9. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which stands dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. July 16, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge