HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No.: 139 of 2004 Decided on: 26.10.2010 State of H.P. ……… Appellant. Versus Ram Lal 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 respondents: Mr.Romesh Verma, 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 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Shimla, dated 2.12.2003, vide which, the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452 and 506, read with Section 149 IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a rapat was lodged with the police by Lalit Kumar Ext.PW-1/B at about 8.30 p.m., who was accompanied by his uncle Paras Ram. In the complaint, it was alleged that today at about 4.00 p.m., he came back from his school and at about 6.00 p.m. in their courtyard, the respondents came alongwith dandas in their hands. Ram Lal and Gian Chand caught hold of him from his arms and Sheela Devi started giving danda blows ___________________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - upon his person. The remaining accused persons present there also gave beatings to him with legs and fists. He raised an alarm on which his mother, who was working in the nearby fields, came and Karam Chand and Krishna Devi also reached there, who rescued him. He also alleged that while leaving the place, the accused persons had also threatened that he will not be left given an opportunity. On this rapat, subsequently, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondents for the abovementioned Sections 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, the complainant Lalit Kumar, while appearing in the witness box as PW-1, has stated that he was given beatings by Sheela Devi, respondent, with a danda and with legs and fists by two of the respondents and other respondents were also present there. He also stated that on hearing his cries, his mother and other villagers came and he was rescued by them. His statement has been corroborated by the statements of PW-2 Krishna Devi, sister-in-law of PW-1 Lalit Kumar and PW-3 Smt.Nirmla Devi, mother of PW-1 Lalit Kumar on all material particulars. PW-4 Paras Ram, the uncle of the complainant, has also tried to show that he was present there but his cross examination shows that in his presence no quarrel took place and he had learnt about the quarrel only from Smt.Nirmla Devi. PW-5 Karam Chand has also supported the statement of the complainant. - 3 - 5. The statements of these witnesses were not relied upon by the learned trial Court holding that they are the members of one family and there was proved enmity in between the parties in regard to the passage through the courtyard, which was being claimed by the complainant party. There is no report of demarcation on record to show if the courtyard belongs to the complainant party, rather the statement of the complainant PW-1 Lalit Kumar shows that the courtyard belongs to the respondents and they had been using the path through the courtyard since it was a shortcut. This clearly shows that the courtyard in question did not belong to the complainant party, who had no right and the said right was never established in any Court as a customary right or any other such right to hold that they were entitled to use the path through the courtyard. The statements of these witnesses are stereotype and they have tried to introduce their presence at the spot and since they are the members of one family and there was a dispute in regard to courtyard for which a civil suit had been filed by the father of PW-1 Lalit Kumar, their evidence was rightly not believed by the learned trial Court. 6. The learned trial Court has also observed that the presence of PW-9 Gauri Shankar at the spot is not natural and he is a chance witness who has tried to establish his presence at the spot but he was not named in the report lodged with the police and his statement was rightly not believed by the learned trial Court. He has admitted that 3- 4 persons were present there at the spot but none of those persons has been examined by the prosecution as a witness. - 4 - The complainant Lalit Kumar as PW-1 has also admitted about the presence of the villagers who came to the spot, but none has been examined from the adjoining houses to support the prosecution story and keeping in view the enmity in between the parties, the dispute in regard to courtyard and the nature of the evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court had rightly not believed the version given by the witnesses. 7. PW-6 Dr.Ravinder Dass has admitted that there was injury on the left upper arm and other injuries, which were simple in nature, given with blunt weapon. He admitted that these injuries are possible due to fall and can be self inflicted also. 8. Therefore, keeping in view the evidence led by the prosecution, the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has not been able to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be said to be 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. Oct.26, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge