Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 427 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Neetu Devi

2016-04-06

RAJIV SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is instituted at the instance of the State against the judgment dated 19.10.2005, rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, Camp at Rampur Bushahr, Distt. Shimla, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 168-2 of 2003, whereby the respondents-accused (hereinafter referred to as accused), who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 451, 323 and 506 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, have been acquitted. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that Dropti Devi PW-1 is the complainant. According to her at about 10:00 AM when she was present in her house, the accused persons, namely, Marchi Devi, Jiwani Devi, Neetu Devi, Laxmi Devi and Kaushalya Devi came from the passage by the side of the house of the complainant. They uprooted the fencing of the house of the complainant. When the complainant objected, these persons gave beatings to her with dandas. She fell down from the wall (danga). She raised hue and cry. Her mother-in-law Seema Devi reached the spot. She rescued her. Thereafter, complainant reached in her courtyard but her mother-in-law was caught by the accused and she was also beaten up with the dandas. In the meantime, father-in-law of the complainant, namely, Rama Nand, reached at the spot. When he tried to intervene, accused persons, namely, Kedar Nath, Naresh, Chaman Lal and Shiv Ram also reached there with dandas in their hands. He was able to rescue himself by confining himself in a room. Thereafter, the accused came to the courtyard of the complainant and threatened that they would kill the complainant and her family members. The complainant reported the matter to the police, which led to the registration of FIR Ext. PW-1/A. The complainant and her mother-in-law were got medically examined. The accused were summoned by the SDJM, Rampur. Notice of accusation was put to them for the offences. They pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the case was fixed for the prosecution evidence. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as 6 witnesses. The accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. According to them, they were falsely implicated. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, Addl. Thereafter, the case was fixed for the prosecution evidence. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as 6 witnesses. The accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. According to them, they were falsely implicated. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, Addl. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused persons. On the other hand, Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Advocate has supported the judgment of the trial Court dated 19.10.2005. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for both the sides and have also gone through the judgment and records of the case carefully. 6. PW-1 Dropti Devi testified that on 4.7.2003, she was present in her house. In the meantime, Marchi Devi, Jiwani Devi, Neetu Devi, Laxmi Devi, Kaushalya Devi, Kedar Nath, Naresh, Chaman Lal and Shiv Ram gave beatings to her. They were carrying dandas in their hands. She cried for help. Her mother-in-law Smt. Seema Devi came and tried to save her. Thereafter, her father-in-law also came to the spot. He was also beaten up when he tried to rescue them. He received injuries on his legs and waist. Thereafter, FIR Ext. PW-1/A was registered. 7. PW-2 Rama Nand is the father-in-law of the complainant PW-1 Dropti Devi. According to him, the incident has taken place on 4.7.2003. He was working in the fields at 10:00 AM. He heard the cries and rushed to his house. Five women, namely, Marchi Devi, Jiwani Devi, Neetu Devi, Laxmi Devi and Kaushalya Devi were giving beatings to PW-1 Dropti Devi with dandas. When he tried to save his daughter-in-law, the accused also attacked him. They threatened him to kill him. Her daughter-in-law was pushed down. They also started beating Seema Devi. 8. PW-3 Seema Devi deposed that on 4.7.2003, she was working in the fields when she heard cries in her house. Thereafter, she rushed to her house and found that the accused were giving beatings to Dropti Devi. She was also given beatings. She identified dandas Ext. P-1 to P-5. 9. PW-4 ASI Sada Nand Sharma has taken PW-1 Dropti Devi and PW-3 Seema Devi for medical examination to CHC Kumarsain. He prepared the spot map Ext. PW-4/A. The accused were arrested. She was also given beatings. She identified dandas Ext. P-1 to P-5. 9. PW-4 ASI Sada Nand Sharma has taken PW-1 Dropti Devi and PW-3 Seema Devi for medical examination to CHC Kumarsain. He prepared the spot map Ext. PW-4/A. The accused were arrested. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the path in question is being used by the parties. 10. PW-5 Dr. Ramesh Chand Guleria has medically examined PW-1 Dropti Devi and PW-3 Seema Devi and issued MLCs Ext. PW-5/A and PW-5/B, respectively. The nature of the injuries was found to be simple and caused by blunt weapon. 11. PW-6 Chander Mehta deposed that in his presence, the accused has produced dandas, regarding which memo Ext. PW-4/B was prepared by the police. 12. The prosecution has not examined any witness from the neighbourhood. It is apparent from the record that the dispute is with regard to use of the passage. According to the prosecution, PW-1 Dropti Devi and PW-3 Seema Devi were beaten up with dandas. However, according to the MLCs Ext. PW-5/A and PW-5/B, the nature of the injuries is simple. There are exaggerations in the statements made by PW-1 Dropti Devi and PW-3 Seema Devi. According to PW-1 Dropti Devi, Rama Nand (PW-2) also received injuries. However, he has not been medically examined. The prosecution ought to have examined independent witnesses in this case. The statements of the closely related witnesses do not inspire confidence. 13. In case the accused were administered beatings with dandas Ext. P-1 to P-5, PW-1 Dropti Devi, PW-2 Rama Nand and PW-3 Seema Devi would have received serious injuries. It has also come on record that the litigation is going on between the parties because of use of passage in question. None of the witnesses have deposed about the cause of quarrel. The land of both the parties abuts each other and common passage, as noticed hereinabove, is used by the complainant as well as the accused and other co-villagers. It appears that the complainant party does not want the path to be used by the accused and other co-villagers by fencing the passage in question. 14. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. Thus, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court dated 19.10.2005. 15. 14. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. Thus, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court dated 19.10.2005. 15. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.