Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 53 (HP)

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SURESH KUMAR

2012-02-27

SURINDER SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT : SURINDER SINGH, J. 1. Heard and gone through the record. 2. The present appeal is against the acquittal of the respondents by the learned trial Court, filed by the State in Case No. 809/I of 2004/97, decided on 30.5.2005. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 16.6.1996 around 5.00 pm when PW1 complainant Jamna Dass was in his shop alongwith his wife PW6 Nirmla Devi, the respondents brought a tipper of mud and threw it on the path in the front of the shop of the complainant to which he objected to. When the respondents brought the second tipper, again the objection was raised by the complainant, the respondents are alleged to have become angry and came armed with Dandas, started beatings the complainant and his wife, with the result both of them sustained injuries on their persons. The alleged incident is stated to have been witnessed by PW9 Kanchana Devi and PW12 Amar Nath, who were also thrashed by the respondents. The damage to the articles kept in the shop was also caused by the respondents. The complainant party was allegedly saved by witnesses Sant Ram and Hem Raj, but they were not examined during the trial of the case. 4. The matter was reported to the police in terms of FIR Ext.PW1/A for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 147, 148, 323, 325, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The police got the injured medically examined. They also took the photographs of the spot and prepared the site plan. Nirmla Devi, the wife of the complainant is stated to have sustained a grievous injury. Police completed the investigation and presented the Challan in the Court, which ended in acquittal. 5. Pertinently, PW10 Investigating Officer Faunu Ram admitted that there was a dispute inter se the parties over the path in the front of the shop of the complainant. According to the respondents, they also sought the order from the S.D.M. not to cause interference in maintenance work. He also admitted that the respondents had unloaded the stones and earth for repairing the existing path. He further admitted that complainant Jamna Dass was also got medically examined. Pertinently, the Investigating Officer also stated that the complainant was an aggressor and there were cross-cases qua the same incident. 6. He also admitted that the respondents had unloaded the stones and earth for repairing the existing path. He further admitted that complainant Jamna Dass was also got medically examined. Pertinently, the Investigating Officer also stated that the complainant was an aggressor and there were cross-cases qua the same incident. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents placed on record the certified copy of the judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate with respect to the FIR filed by the respondents regarding the same incident which ultimately culminated into the trial and acquittal of the accused persons. Some of the respondents herein also sustained injuries thus it was difficult to conclude as to who was the aggressor. 7. On the critical examination of the aforesaid facts on record and particularly material admissions by the Investigating Officer, it cannot be established by the prosecution as to who was the aggressor and further when there were cross-cases with respect to the same incident these ought to have been tried together by the same Court to arrive at the correct conclusion, but in the instant case separate cases were filed in the different Courts and decided by them independently. Therefore, in view of these circumstances, the learned trial Court rightly acquitted the respondents by giving them the benefit of doubt, which requires no interference. Hence the appeal sans merit which is accordingly dismissed. 8. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them during the proceeding of this case.