Judgment KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9.10.1997 delivered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak holding the present appellants guilty for offence under Sections 333/149 and 332/149 ipc. This appeal also assails order dated 18.10.1997 whereby appellant Dhani ram was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Sec.333/149 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sec.332/149 IPC. Other four appellants, namely, Mahender, Rajinder, Ude Singh and Rohtash were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Sec.333/149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. These four appellants were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-under Sec.332/149 IPC. The trial Court acquitted their co-accused Abhe Ram. 2. Present five appellants, namely, Mahender, Rajinder, Ude Singh, dhani Ram and Rohtash are brothers. They were named as accused along with acquitted accused Abhe Ram in case FIR No.14 dated 18.1.1995 registered at police Station Jhajjar under Sections 148, 332, 333, 342, 353, 506, 149 IPC. 3. Ombir Singh Bhoria, Field Kanungo, Jhajjar submitted a written complaint in the Court of Shri C. L. Mohal, Sub Judge Ist Class, Jhajjar. Subject of the complaint was regarding beating/kidnapping and snatching of warrants of execution. In the complaint it was submitted that on 17.1.1995, complainant ombir Singh, Field Kanungo along with Satpal Singh, Patwari reached village nangla for executing warrants of possession pertaining to execution No.76/10/92 arising out of Case No.314 of 1986, titled as Mahender Singh etc. son of surjan, residents of Nangla V/s. Hoshiar Singh etc. High Court had stayed further proceedings in the above said case, therefore, the warrants could not be executed and writing to this effect was prepared. The parties were satisfied and had signed the proceedings. Then suddenly parties shifted the stand. They told the complainant that Girdawar Sahib, the proceedings drawn be torn and a fresh writing be drawn to the effect that party No.1 is in possession of the land. The parties were satisfied and had signed the proceedings. Then suddenly parties shifted the stand. They told the complainant that Girdawar Sahib, the proceedings drawn be torn and a fresh writing be drawn to the effect that party No.1 is in possession of the land. The complainant refused to entertain this assertion of the party. After some time, Mahender, Rajender, Ude Singh, dhani Ram, Rohtash sons of Surjan and Abhe Ram son of Fakira started beating him. Thereafter, they took an iron rod handle of Eicher tractor and started beating the complainant and dragged him to their house. They snatched the documents from the hands of the Patwari. The Patwari ran away from the spot. They snatched woolen shawl, HMT watch and Rs.918/- cash from the complainant and locked him in a room, where he was forcibly beaten and liquor was poured in his mouth. Thereafter, they put the complainant in TATA 407. They tied the hands and feet of the complainant and threw him from the vehicle as a dog. Police reached at the spot. Accused had detained the complainant in a room. Thereafter, the complainant heard the noise of police, started knocking the door but accused threatened that they would kill the complainant, therefore, proceedings on warrants of possession could not be completed. Complainant made a request that action be taken against the accused and his articles be got recovered. This complaint was submitted on 18.1.1995. On the complaint, judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jhajjar made an endorsement directing the SHO, police Station, Jhajjar to register an FIR and investigate the matter under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. Thereafter case FIR Ex. PA/2 was registered on 18.1.1995. 4. In the present case, occurrence had taken place on 17.1.1995. On the very next day, application Ex. PA was moved before the concerned Court and on the same day FIR was registered against the accused. The matter was investigated. Report under Sec.173 Cr. P. C. was submitted. The accused were charged for offence under Sections 148, 333/149, 506/149 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined HC Moti Ram as PW1. He stated that on 20.1.1995, he was posted at Police Station Sadar Jhajjar. On that day, he was entrusted with investigation of the case. He had recorded supplementary statement of complainant Ombir. The accused were charged for offence under Sections 148, 333/149, 506/149 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined HC Moti Ram as PW1. He stated that on 20.1.1995, he was posted at Police Station Sadar Jhajjar. On that day, he was entrusted with investigation of the case. He had recorded supplementary statement of complainant Ombir. This witness got prepared the scaled site plan from the draftsman, taken into possession certified copy of Ex. P1 warrant of possession and also recorded statements of the witnesses under Sec.161 Cr. P. C. . 5. Anil Kapoor, Ahlmad to the Court of Sub Just Ist Class, Rohtak appeared as PW2. He brought case file of Execution Petition no.76/10/24.12.1992. According to this witness, a case was pending between mohinder Singh, Rajender Singh, Ude Singh, Dhani Ram, Rohtash sons of Surjan, residents of Nangla on one side and against Hoshiar Singh, Smt. Vidya and smt. Savitri belonging to other side. The file brought by him was taken into possession for the Court record in a sealed cover. Two photo copies of the file were got prepared. 6. Ombir complainant appeared as PW3. He stated that after proceedings were concluded, original warrants were handed over to the Patwari and the same were snatched. In cross-examination this witness stated that during the night he remained in the police station. He reported the matter to the Judicial Magistrate at 10.00 A. M. Police had saved him from one of the rooms of the house of Mahender. This witness further stated that during the night, he requested the police to register the case but they were saying that they will take proceedings in due course and he was not given any medical treatment by the police on that night. This witness further stated that Ex. DA carried his signatures at point A. This witness further stated that police forcibly got executed Ex. DA from him. The attestation on Ex. DA from the Tehsildar was obtained later. He further stated that police had not accompanied him to the hospital for medico legal examination. This witness denied the suggestion that occurrence had ensued, as he had demanded money from the accused. He further denied that he had taken liquor along with Patwari. 7. Satpal, Patwari appeared as PW4 and corroborated the version given by PW3 Ombir. He further stated that police had not accompanied him to the hospital for medico legal examination. This witness denied the suggestion that occurrence had ensued, as he had demanded money from the accused. He further denied that he had taken liquor along with Patwari. 7. Satpal, Patwari appeared as PW4 and corroborated the version given by PW3 Ombir. This witness stated that Dhani Ram accused gave beatings by handle of the tractor. Other accused gave kick and fists blows. This witness stated that police came at 10.30 P. M. He and complainant accompanied the police and remained in the police station throughout the night and they were freed by the police at 10.00 A. M. Dr. S. K. Bhutani PW5 medico legally examined Ombir Singh complainant and found the following injuries on his person:- "1. Contusion just above right knee joint, oblique and transverse, 10 cm. x 2 cm. , reddish, tender. Advised x-ray. 2. Contusion just below right knee joint transverse and oblique, 10 cm. x 2 cm. , reddish, tender. Advised x-ray. 3. Multiple abrasions on right leg on upper middle and lower side, 3 in number 1 cm. x 1 cm. in size, reddish. 4. Contusion on right fore-arm laterally in the middle vertically oblique, reddish, 10 cm. x 2 cm. Advised x-ray. 5. Contusion on right angle of eye on right cheek 3 cm. x 3 cm. 6. Contusion on left elbow medially, vertically oblique, 4 cm. x 4 cm. Tender. Advised x-ray. 7. Multiple contusions 8 in number on back of chest each 2 cm. x 2 cm. approximately. Advised x-ray. " Injuries No.2 and 7 were declared grievous in nature. PW6 Gian Singh, Clerk from the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jhajjar brought the summoned record. He stated that Ex. PF is copy of entry No.56 dated 6.1.1993 of the register. PW7 Sunil Kumar Bhatnagar, Draftsman proved scaled site plan Ex. PG. SI Jagdish Chander PW8 investigated the matter. In cross- examination, he stated that on 17.1.1995 neither Ombir or Satpal met him at any place, at any time. 8 Roshan Lal, Office Kanungo PW9 produced the summoned record ex. PW9/a and B. These were trued copies of the orders of duty roster of Ombir singh, Kanungo and Sat Pal, Patwari. Statement of the accused were recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. They denied all incriminating circumstances put to them. 8 Roshan Lal, Office Kanungo PW9 produced the summoned record ex. PW9/a and B. These were trued copies of the orders of duty roster of Ombir singh, Kanungo and Sat Pal, Patwari. Statement of the accused were recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. They denied all incriminating circumstances put to them. The accused further pleaded their false implication. 9. Ajit Singh, Sarpanch appeared as DW1. This witness stated that complainant had come to the house of Mahender. He demanded Rs.10,000/-. On his intervention, matter was settled at Rs.8,000/-. However, money could not be paid to the complainant. On that day, complainant and Patwari had taken liquor in the Baithak. They consumed two bottles of liquor. He came back to his house from the Baithak of accused. Mir Singh also went to his house. At 11.30 P. M. Dhan Singh came to his house and woke him up. When he reached there, he saw large number of people and police there. 10. Premvati wife of Dhan Singh appeared as DW2. She stated that she had gone to the Baithak to give milk to her father-in-law. Her father-in- law was aged 70/80 years and is blind. Ombir who was present in the Baithak torn her blouse with bad intention. She raised a noise. Her husband reached there and started beating Ombir. 11. Madan appeared as DW3. He stated that Dhani Ram came to him at 10.15 P. M. . Dhani Ram told him that complainant had taken liquor and made an attempt to outrage the modesty of his wife. Information was sent to the police and police reached there. Om Parkash, Numberdar DW4 also corroborated the testimony of DW3 Madan. 12. Mr. BIPAN Ghai, senior counsel has stated that version projected by pw3 Ombir and PW4 Satpal is unnatural, improbable and unconvincing, therefore, same be discarded and due credence be given to the defence version. 13. Ms. HEMLATA Balhara, Assistant Advocate General appearing for the state has stated that learned trial Court rightly placed reliance on the testimony of PW3 Ombir and PW4 Satpal. 14. There are certain features of this case which make this Court, doubt the version of the complainant. Complainant in his capacity as Kanungo girdawar along with the Patwari had gone to the village to execute the warrant of possession. 14. There are certain features of this case which make this Court, doubt the version of the complainant. Complainant in his capacity as Kanungo girdawar along with the Patwari had gone to the village to execute the warrant of possession. When he reached at the spot, it was learnt that High Court has already granted stay of further proceedings. Complainant Ombir PW3 want this court to believe that writing was completed to this effect. It was later that accused requested that document be changed and they be shown in possession. This according to the witness was the cause which led the accused to cause him injuries. It was further stated that thereafter the accused caught hold of his hands and poured liquor in his mouth. Once stay had been obtained, proceedings to this effect had been executed and accused had raised no objection, something might happened at the spot which led the accused to change their mind. The story that the accused told that they be shown in possession, does not seem justifiable and there was no reason to pour liquor in the mouth of the complainant. Accused had allegedly snatched the original warrants of possession, then what was the reason to detain the complainant in a room. According to complainant, he and Patwari had reached at the spot at 5.00 P. M. According to PW4, the proceedings were concluded at 5.45 p. M. The complainant and PW4 Satpal stayed in the village of the accused. According to the complainant, police had reached on the same night. Who called the police? Why the police was called? are the questions, which remain unanswered. According to the complainant, he was taken to the police station and he remained in the police station for the whole night. Why the case was not registered? According to the complainant, during the night, he remained at the police station. He reported the matter to the Judicial Magistrate at 10.00 A. M. In the present case, the complainant had presented a written application to the judicial Magistrate Ist Class. In the complaint, it is no where stated that police was helping the accused or siding with them. 15. In the context of above circumstances, the defence version becomes probable. Accused had examined DW2 Premvati. She had specifically stated that ombir PW3 had torn her blouse. The accused belong to a traditional, conservative, farming community. In the complaint, it is no where stated that police was helping the accused or siding with them. 15. In the context of above circumstances, the defence version becomes probable. Accused had examined DW2 Premvati. She had specifically stated that ombir PW3 had torn her blouse. The accused belong to a traditional, conservative, farming community. They will be the last person to put woman of their family in the witness box to save themselves, in case what has been stated by Premvati had not happened. Further more Sarpanch of the village DW1 Ajit Singh, Om Parkash Lamberdar DW4 and madan, residents of the village have lent support to the version given by the accused. A compromise was drawn on 18.1.1995 in the Police Station, which has been exhibited as Ex. DA/1. It specifically state that on the evening of 17.1.1995, an altercation had taken place between the accused and complainant ombir and due to intervention, a compromise had been arrived. This compromise has been proved by DW1 Ajit Singh, Sarpanch and Om Parkash DW4. Once the compromise was arrived, there was no need for the complainant to submit application Ex. PA to the Judicial Magistrate. Probably the talk that complainant had atempted to outrage the modesty of Premvati had travelled too far and to save his service and to ward off what was circulating among the people, out of necessity complaint Ex. PA was filed. Premvati DW2 has specifically stated that her husband Dhan Singh had caused the injuries. Once attempt had been made to outrage the modesty of a woman, Dhan Singh was justified to cause the injuries. 16. Thus, for the discussion made above, this Court as a matter of abundant caution intend to grant the benefit of doubt to the accused-appellants and acquit them of the charges. Accordingly, the present appeal is accepted.