Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 139 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Balbir Singh

2014-03-01

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT Per Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.10.2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., in criminal case No.58/2 of 2005, whereby accused persons, Balbir Singh, Anita Devi, Soma Devi, Kunti Devi and Shanti Devi, who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 447, 427, 323 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, were acquitted. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 27.12.2004, PW1 Tara Devi, complainant, and her husband PW2 Daulat Ram were raising construction of a cowshed on their land comprised in Khasra No.1028 through mason PW3 Kundan Singh and labourers PW4 Govind Ram and Sahi Ram. At about 4.00 P.M., the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and committed criminal trespass by entering into the land of the complainant. They caused damage to the cowshed and also gave beatings to the complainant with fist and kick blows. The accused persons criminally intimidated the complainant by hurling threats. She was saved from the clutches of the accused persons by her husband Daulat Ram, mason Kundan Singh and labourers Govind Ram and Sahi Ram. The matter was reported to the police. FIR No.94/04 was registered against the accused persons. The complainant was medically examined at Referral Hospital, Dadahu. The land belonging to the parties was got demarcated by the Field Kanungo on 11.2.2005. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up in the trial court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. They denied the case of the prosecution and claimed innocence. According to them, the complainant intended to grab the land belonging to them, qua which they were facing civil litigation. Learned trial court acquitted the accused persons vide judgment dated 28.10.2005. Hence, the appeal. 4. Mr. M.A.Khan, learned Addl. Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons. 5. Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, learned Advocate, has supported the impugned judgment dated 28.10.2005. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 7. PW1, Tara Devi, has deposed that she was owner of land measuring 2 ½ Bighas. Her residential house was situated over it. 5. Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, learned Advocate, has supported the impugned judgment dated 28.10.2005. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 7. PW1, Tara Devi, has deposed that she was owner of land measuring 2 ½ Bighas. Her residential house was situated over it. On 27.12.2004 her husband started construction of a cowshed. He had deployed mason Kundan and labourers namely Sahi Ram and Govind. On 27.12.2004, Balbir along with Kunti, Suma, Shanti, and Guddi came on the spot and the construction raised by the mason was demolished. The complainant was given beatings by the accused with fist and kick blows. 8. PW2, Daulat Ram is husband of the complainant. According to him, he had started construction of a cowshed on his land. He had engaged Kundan as mason and Sahi Ram and Govind as labourers. On 27.12.2004, at about 4.00 P.M., Balbir, Kunti, Shanti, Suma and Guddi came on the spot. They told him that the cowshed was being constructed on their land. They demolished the wall. His wife was given beatings by the accused persons with fist and kick blows. He saved his wife with the help of Kundan, Govind and Sahi Ram. In his cross-examination, he has admitted about the civil litigation going on between the parties. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that no blood oozed out from the body of his wife. 9. PW3, Kundan Singh, has deposed that he was engaged by Daulat Ram in summer season. According to him, Balbir came on the spot at about 9.00/10.00 A.M. He further deposed that at about 4.00 P.M., Shanti, Kunti, Guddi, Balbir and Suma came to the spot. The construction raised by him was demolished by them. Tara Devi was given beatings with fist and kick blows. In cross-examination, he deposed that blood oozed out from the injuries inflicted on the body of Tara Devi. 10. PW4, Govind Singh, has deposed that he was engaged by Daulat Ram as labourer on 27.12.2004. He deposed the manner in which the quarrel took place. According to him, Tara Devi was saved by Daulat Ram. 11. PW5, Onkar Nath, had carried out the demarcation of the disputed land. 12. PW6, ASI Shyam Sunder, had investigated the matter. 13. PW7, Dr. Vijay Krishna, had medically examined the complainant. He issued MLC, Ext. He deposed the manner in which the quarrel took place. According to him, Tara Devi was saved by Daulat Ram. 11. PW5, Onkar Nath, had carried out the demarcation of the disputed land. 12. PW6, ASI Shyam Sunder, had investigated the matter. 13. PW7, Dr. Vijay Krishna, had medically examined the complainant. He issued MLC, Ext. PW7/A. According to him, the injuries were simple in nature. 14. What emerges from the statements of the prosecution witnesses is that civil litigation was going on between the parties. PW3 Kundan Singh has deposed that the blood started oozing out from the injuries inflicted on the body of Tara Devi, however, PW2 Daulat Ram, husband of the complainant has categorically stated that no blood oozed out from the injuries. There is no reference in the demarcation report to the revenue record. It has come in the statement of PW4, that only one of the accused persons had given beatings to the complainant. Had all the accused persons, as per the case of the prosecution, given beatings to the complainant, she would have received serious injuries. According to MLC, Ext.PW7/A, injuries received by the complainant were simple in nature. According to the prosecution case, the incident took place on 27.12.2004, however, according to PW3 Kundan Singh, he was engaged by Daulat Ram in summer season. According to PW2, Daulat Ram, he saved the complainant with the help of Kundan Singh, Sahi Ram and Govind. But, according to PW4, Govind, only PW2 Daulat Ram saved the complainant. According to PW3, Kundan Singh, only Kunti, Soma and Guddi Devi gave beatings to the complainant, whereas PW4, Govind Singh in his cross-examination has deposed that there was exchange of blows between the complainant and Guddi only. According to PW1 and PW2 all the accused persons had given beatings to the complainant. All the witnesses were interested witnesses. PW2 is husband of the complainant. PW3 and PW4 were engaged by PW2 Daulat Ram. One of the labourers Sahi Ram has not been examined by the prosecution. There are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused. 11. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis, made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds are ordered to be discharged. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused. 11. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis, made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds are ordered to be discharged. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.