IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 553 of 1999 Reserved on: 27.2.2008 Date of decision: 29.2.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh ... Appellant Versus Beli Ram & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondents: Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Jaswal and Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocates, for respondents No. 1 to 5. V.K. Ahuja , J.: This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr, dated 13.7.1999, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325 and 506 read with Section 149 I.P.C. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a report was lodged with the police on 10.3.1997 by complainant Baisakhu Ram alleging that on the previous night at about 6.30/7.00 PM when he was 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 sitting in his kitchen alongwith other persons, Beli Ram, respondent called him out and his family was also there and they asked him to vacate the house and when he refused he was hit on his nose with a stone and other accused persons gave beatings to him with danda, kicks and fist blows. It was also alleged that when one Bhagat Ram tried to rescue him, he and Roshan Lal sitting in his house were also given beatings by the accused persons. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation challan was filed as against the respondents who were tried by the trial Court leading to their acquittal. Heard. The submissions made by the learned Law Officer for the appellant were that the statement of the complainant has been materially corroborated from the testimony of other eye witnesses including one of the injured, but the learned trial Court wrongly disbelieved the evidence and as such, those findings are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents had supported the impugned judgment for the reasons given therein supplementing it by the submissions that the complainant party was the aggressor and the accused persons had also suffered number of injuries which have not been explained by the prosecution. Therefore, the findings of the learned trial Court acquitting the respondents do not call for an interference by this Court. On a perusal of the evidence, it is clear that the complainant Baisakhu Ram as PW-1 has stated that he was present in his house alongwith other persons, accused persons came there and he was 3 given a stone blow on his nose by Jia Lal accused. He fell down and became unconscious and was rescued by Roshan Lal and Ishru who also saw the occurrence. He clearly stated that no other beatings took place in his presence. He was declared as hostile and in cross-examination by the prosecution he only admitted that the accused persons had also given beatings to Bhagat Ram and Roshan Lal. In his statement as PW-1 he named 5 accused persons out of total 7 and stated that he only identifies the remaining, but does not know their names and he never identified that these were the remaining two accused persons at that time. Thus, he had named only 5 accused out of 7 and he admitted that a civil case was also filed for this land which was dismissed and the appeal is pending in the High Court. He also admitted that another civil case was filed and the Sessions Court decided the case in their favour. He also admitted having sold the land of his share which suggests that there is a civil litigation in between the parties and the evidence was required to be appreciated with more care and caution. He also further admitted that Beli Ram accused had filed a case against him and 8 other persons including witnesses for forcibly entering in the land and giving them beatings, which case is pending in the Court. PW-2 Roshan Lal who had allegedly rescued the complainant had not named the accused persons and had simply stated that he knows the accused persons and they were present in the house of the complainant when accused came there, called the complainant outside and gave him beatings. He stated that he and his father Bhagat Ram suffered injuries on various parts of their body. In his cross-examination, 4 he clearly admitted that he alongwith his father and others were taken to the spot on the assurance that they will be given land and he was to be made Dharamputra and was to be given the land. He also admitted that they had gone with their cattle to take the land which suggests and the accused party had stated that the land belongs to them and they will not allow the interference which suggests that the complainant party may have gone there to take forcible possession of this land. These possibilities cannot be ruled out in view of the evidence. He stated that he was given 2-3 danda blows but has not named who gave beatings to him and he cannot say who gave beatings to his father. He has also stated that the injuries on the person of Baisakhu Ram with stone was inflicted by Jia Lal accused. However, PW-3 Ishwar Dass son of PW-2 Bhagat Ram, when he appeared in the witness had stated that the complainant was given blow on his nose with a danda which is contradictory to the version of the complainant and PW-2 Roshan Lal. PW-5 Smt. Maggi Devi wife of Bhagat Ram who was also allegedly called to the sport earlier by the complainant for cooking etc. had also stated that accused Jia Lal and others in all 7 persons came there but she is not aware of the names of others. She also stated that the complainant was given beatings by Balia and Jia Lal with danda which is contrary to the version of the complainant that he was given only one stone blow over his nose by Jia Lal. She stated that when she went to rescue her husband she was also given blows with dandas but she is not aware as to who gave beatings to them. Thus, she never identified other accused persons nor stated about the injuries on her person and as to by whom these were inflicted. 5 PW-7 Bhag Chand had been called subsequently and saw Beli Ram lying on a cot with blood oozing out and thereafter he went to the house of complainant Baisakhu who had suffered injuries on his nose. His statement shows that Beli Ram accused had also suffered injuries at that time for which there is no explanation by any of the witness. Moreover, it has come up in evidence that a cross case for the same occurrence was registered against the complainant and others and it would have been appropriate if both these cases had been decided together by the trial Court since it has come up that other case is still pending. He clearly stated that he had not seen the occurrence. The learned trial Court had observed that relation in between the parties were inimical and had also referred to the contradictions in the testimony of eye witnesses. It was also observed that the accused persons also sustained injuries and the persons who had supported the complainant partly only were interested witnesses who had been called by him, looking after him and for giving them land. These witnesses were chance witnesses only whose presence cannot be said to be natural but appears to have been procured earlier and as discussed above, they had been assured to be given the land which they allegedly came to take possession from the accused persons. Keeping in view the infirmities in the prosecution case and the contradictions in the statements of the witnesses referred to above by the learned trial Court, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the trial Court acquitting the respondents were perverse calling for an interference by this Court and as such, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State, which is liable to be dismissed 6 and the same is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ), February 29, 2007 Judge (BSS)