Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1276 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Sarla Devi

2011-03-15

SURINDER SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J. In the present appeal, the State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2006 decided on 15.7.2008, whereby he reversed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 323 and 324 read with Section 34 Indian Penal code, into acquittal. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. In brief, facts are: (i) On 18.1.2003 at about 2.20 p.m. PW1 Soma Devi was in her field. It is alleged that respondent Sarla Devi had tried to wrap-up the barbed wire, to which she objected on the ground that a Civil Suit was pending in the court with respect to the said land and she should not disturb it. On this, Sarla Devi fisti-cuffed her. On raising noise by her sister Sharda Devi and father Gurmit Singh came to the spot. In the meantime, other respondents also appeared and started beating her with sticks and gave fist blows. Respondent Ramesh Chand was having sickle (Darati) in his hand and he is alleged to have caused incised wound on the right forearm of the complainant. PW3 Param Jeet Singh is stated to have intervened. Thereafter the respondents fled away from the spot. (ii) PW6 H.C. Brahm Dass was on patrolling duty in the bazaar where the complainant happened to meet him and recorded her statement Ext. PW1/A under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter she was referred to the medical examination. (iii) PW5 Dr. Sandeep Narula noticed an incised wound on right arm of size 1 cm x 1 cm x. 5 cm. A bruise on left lateral margin of left knee joint of size 1 cm x 5 cm. Scratch abrasion over left leg of size 10 cm x1 cm, a bruise over lying dorsal spine on back of the size of 6 cm x2 cm x 1 cm. The injuries were opined to be less then 24 hours and incised injury in the right forearm was opined to be by sharp edged weapon. To this effect he issued Medico Legal Certificate Ext. PW5/A. (iv) Gurmit Singh her father also sustained injuries in the said incident. He was also examined by the said doctor. The injuries were opined to be less then 24 hours and incised injury in the right forearm was opined to be by sharp edged weapon. To this effect he issued Medico Legal Certificate Ext. PW5/A. (iv) Gurmit Singh her father also sustained injuries in the said incident. He was also examined by the said doctor. The injuries sustained by him were five and all were simple in nature as mentioned in the MLC Ext. PW5/B. (v) Sarla Devi accused-respondent had also sustained the injuries in the same incident. She was also examined by doctor PW5 aforesaid. She was also found having bruise of size 4 cm x 1 cm on the spine at the back and was referred to ENT for the opinion of the Specialist for other injuries. These injuries were also allegedly caused within less than 24 hours. Medico legal certificate is Ext. PW5/C and as per doctor it could be caused with fist blows and dandas. (vi) A formal FIR was registered and after completing the investigation, police came to the conclusion that respondents were responsible for the offences aforesaid as such presented the challan against them for their trial. 4. Respondents were charge-sheeted, tried and convicted by the learned trial Court and in appeal filed by them, the learned Session Judge, after re-examining the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the evidence putforth by the prosecution with respect to the offences charged was doubtful. Consequently the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court was set aside and the respondents were acquitted after giving the benefit of doubt. Hence the appeal by the State. 5. The entire evidence has been perused by me in order to find out the legality of the judgment impugned. It is an admitted case of the parties as spelt out from the evidence on record that the apple of contention was an agricultural land to which the complainant was claiming to be theirs and the respondents as their own property. 6. During the investigation, police neither got the land in dispute demarcated nor obtained revenue papers thereof, whereas the plea of the respondent party is that the civil litigation is pending and they had obtained the stay with respect to the land comprised in khasra No. 3172 owned by the father of the respondent and placed on record the jamabandi Ext. During the investigation, police neither got the land in dispute demarcated nor obtained revenue papers thereof, whereas the plea of the respondent party is that the civil litigation is pending and they had obtained the stay with respect to the land comprised in khasra No. 3172 owned by the father of the respondent and placed on record the jamabandi Ext. D1 showing him to be the owner in possession of the aforesaid land. The fact of litigation is also admitted by the complainant. The Investigating Officer PW6 HC Brahm Dass did not offer any explanation for not verifying the possession qua the land in dispute. It is admitted by him that the respondents had sustained the injuries in the same incident but there is one Medico legal certificate of respondent Sarla Devi Ext. PW5/C on record. The prosecution did not explain as to how the respondents had sustained the injuries in the said incident more specifically when the dispute is with respect to the possession of the land of which the respondent party has been recorded as owner in possession as is revealed by the copy of jamabandi Ext. D1. The complainant party appears to have not spoken whole truth and the prosecution appears to have suppressed the true facts. The stand taken by the respondents is that it was the complainant party who had tried to take possession of the disputed land. As already stated in absence of any evidence of possession of the complainant of the land in dispute, the complainant party was not justified to stop the respondents to do any work in their own land. Further the fact as to who was aggressor is also not established. Therefore, prosecution case against the respondent stands not proved. 7. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any perversity in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, as such the appeal filed by the State is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed. 8. Respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of this case.