IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 640 of 2002 Date of decision: 24.02.2010 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Piar Chand and others … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. M.S. Guleria, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 2, Palampur, dated 26.6.2000, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 147, 323, 324, 325, 447 and 506 I.P.C. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 8.10.1996 at 10.50 A.M., a report was lodged by Smt. Sunita Devi that today at about 9.30 A.M., she alongwith her devrani Swarna Devi were cutting grass in their land. She alleged that they have a dispute in regard to boundary of this land and when they had cut 3-4 Pullas of grass, Brahma Nand, Milapi Chand and Kishan Chand alongwith 15-20 persons came there with dratis and lathies and they started giving 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 beatings to them with dratis and lathies. She suffered injuries on various parts of her body. Blood started oozing out. It was further alleged that her devrani Swarna Devi was also inflicted blows with dratis and lathies and blood oozed out. On this report, a case was registered subsequently after medical examination. After investigation, the challan was filed as against the respondents, who were tried by the learned trial Court as detailed above. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. On appraisal of the record of the case and reasoning given by the learned trial Court, it has been rightly observed by the learned trial Court that neither the complainant PW-1 Smt. Sunita nor her devrani PW-3 Smt. Swarna Devi alleged in the statements made by them in Court that any person came to the spot and rescued them and she did not name even a single person who rescued them at the spot. Even in the report lodged by the complainant Ext. PW7/B, she never named any person having come to the spot and rescued them. Therefore, the statements of three witnesses examined by the prosecution subsequently as eye witnesses, namely, PW-4 Smt. Vidya Devi and PW-5 Prem Chand, do not inspire confidence since their presence at the spot becomes doubtful as the complainant or other injured never stated about there presence at the spot. These witnesses also mentioned one another person Kavlotu Devi, who was not examined, but she was named as eye witness having rescued both the injured at the spot. Apart from the above, it is also clear from the perusal of the statement of complainant PW-1 and other injured PW-3 Smt. 3 Swarna Devi that they have never named the accused persons as the persons who inflicted blows upon them. They only stated about the accused persons present in Court having given beatings with sticks, lathies and dratis. In the Court the witnesses were required to name the persons or identify them properly so that their identity could be established. But the statements of these witnesses do not establish the identity of the accused persons. Even in the report lodged with the police Ext. PW7/B, the complainant had named only three persons and the remaining two accused persons were also not named by them. It is not her case that they were not known to her. She has specifically alleged that there were 15-20 persons named by them, but they have not been identified nor associated as accused persons in the case during investigation by the police. A perusal of the statements of the eye witnesses, namely PW-4 Smt. Vidya Devi and PW-5 Prem Chand, show that even they have not named the accused persons who gave beatings to both the injured. Therefore, the identity of the accused persons was not established beyond any reasonable doubt. Moreover, the accused persons have also been tried for the offence of criminal trespass under Section 447 I.P.C., but no demarcation of the place was taken by the Investigating Officer to establish if the complainant party was in possession of the land or had been cutting the grass from the said land. However, it has come up in the statement of PW-3 Swarna Devi, injured, that where the quarrel took place it is a common path and persons come to fetch water from the said place. This clearly shows that the complainant party was not in exclusive possession of the land from where they cut the grass and the accused persons allegedly criminally trespassed into the said 4 land or gave beatings. In view of the above discussion it is clear that the guilt of the accused persons had not been established beyond any reasonable doubt and the reasoning given by the learned trial Court in holding so, cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ), February 24, 2010 Judge (BSS) 5