IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 320 of 2011 Date of decision : 09.05.2011. ____________________________________________________________ Chamaru Ram …Petitioner. Versus Nant Ram and ors. . …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. J.S.Rana, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.8. None for other respondents. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 378 Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to file appeal against judgment dated 31.3.2011 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chachiot at Gohar, Distt. Mandi. 2. The petitioner had filed complaint under Sections 500, 323, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 IPC against respondents No.1 to 7 on the allegations that respondents No.6 and 7 are brother and nephew of complainant respectively. The complainant is a ‘Gur’ of Goddess Shangan, respondent No.6 is also claiming right of Gurship of the Goddess. The respondents No.6 and 7 are inimical towards the complainant and his family members, as the complainant does not ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 acknowledge the claim of respondent No.6. The sister of respondents No.1 and 2 was married to respondent No.7, she died of some illness despite treatment. The respondents had been leveling false imputations against complainant blaming him for the death of wife of respondent No.7 by invoking the Super Power of Deity Dharagsa situated at Village Gansehar in presence of general public. 3. The complainant alongwith his family members Rameshwar, Ghanshayam and Hima etc. had gone to a local fair at Village Chohri, one Inder had also accompanied them. It has been alleged that on return from fair, the complainant party stayed in the matrimonial house of daughter of the complainant in village Dudhla for three days. 4. It is also the case of the complainant that on 20.8.2005 when the complainant etc. were returning from the house of the daughter of the complainant, respondents No.1 to 7 formed an unlawful assembly, holding dandas and Kudali in their hands, alarmed the complainant and his family members, imputed allegations that complainant was responsible for the death of sister of respondents No.1 to 5 by invoking the Super Power of Deity Dharaksa. The respondents No.1 to 7 gave merciless beatings to the complainant and his family members with dandas and kudali and also gave leg and fist blows. The respondents No.1 to 7 also threw stones upon the complainant party, as a result of which complainant and his family members got injured. The complainant etc. were saved by the intervention of Inder. The respondents No.1 to 7 threatened the complainant party with dire consequences and they would do away 3 with lives of the complainant etc. At that time, filthy abuses were also hurled at the complainant etc. 5. The complainant along with his family members reported the matter to the Police vide Rapat No. 17 dated 20.8.2005 at 4.00 p.m., the occurrence had taken place at 1.30 p.m. on 20.8.2005. The Police did some investigation but lateron Police did not prove to be effective in taking necessary action against respondents No.1 to 7. The Police took the stand that complainant should bring the matter to the notice of Gram Panchayat for adjudication. The Police have connived with respondents No.1 to 7 and had not taken any action against them. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint. 6. The Court took the cognizance of the case and issued process on 4.12.2006 to respondents No.1 to 7 after recording pre- charge evidence. The charge was framed under Sections 148, 323, 506(II) and Section 500 read with Section 149 IPC. The respondents No.1 to 7 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The complainant examined four witnesses. The statements of respondents No.1 to 7 were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They pleaded their innocence. The learned trial Court acquitted the respondents No.1 to 7, hence the application for leave to file appeal. 7. The complainant appeared as CW-1. He admitted his inimical relations with respondents No.1 to 7. CW-2 Inder Singh has stated that on the relevant day, Oma Devi had restrained the complainant, Himi Devi gave shoe blow on the face of Chamaru Ram, another accused struck the head of complainant with another shoe. The dispute continued for 45 minutes. No shoes allegedly used by Himi 4 Devi and another accused has been produced in the court. CW-2 in his cross-examination has stated that no one from the adjoining area came to the spot during the incident, even though 50-60 houses are existing on the spot. It is highly improbable that in a dispute spanning over 45 minutes no injury was caused to any respondent nor any other independent person intervened in the matter. CW-2 has admitted that he had friendly relation with complainant. He is an interested person, his testimony is to be scrutinized with very closely. 8. CW-3 is the son-in-law of the complainant. CW-1(A) Chamaru Ram has exhibited MLCs Ex.PW-1/A to Ex.PW-1/D. The Doctor who issued the MLCs has not been examined. CW-4 has stated that Ghamshayam, Rameshwar and Hima Devi wife of Rameshwar had suffered simple bodily injuries, but none of them have been examined. The incident allegedly took place on 20.8.2005 and the complaint was filed after two months. It can be safely concluded that the complaint has been filed after deliberations. No independent witness has been examined by the complainant, even though, the occurrence took place where 50-60 houses are situated. The learned trial Magistrate, as emerges from the impugned judgment, has considered the entire material and has taken a possible view. No case for grant of leave to appeal has been made out. 9. In view of the above, leave refused, petition dismissed. May 9, 2011 ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.