Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2164 (HP)

Parkash Chand v. Gurdas Ram

2018-12-06

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.PC., is directed against the judgment dated 1.6.2017, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, in Panchayat Appeal No. 3 of 2015, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 26.6.2015, passed by the Gram Panchayat, Kashmir, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, HP. 2. Facts, as emerge from the record are that on 6.3.2015, complainant respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant"), lodged a report against the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") alleging therein that on 6.3.2015, at about 2:00 pm, when he asked the accused not to carry their cattle through his courtyard, accused in furtherance of common intention gave him as well as his family members beatings, as a consequence of which, they suffered injuries. On the basis of aforesaid statement having been made by the complainant under Section 154 Cr.PC., formal FIR bearing No. 31/2015 dated 6.3.2015, came to be registered against the accused. After completion of investigation, police presented challan for offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC, before respondent No.2 i.e. gram Panchayat, Kashmir, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, as case is/was exclusively triable by the Panchayat. 3. After taking cognigence of the matter, concerned Panchayat conducted trial and vide order dated 26.6.2015, imposed fine of Rs. 10 each against all the accused. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid order of conviction recorded by the Gram Panchayat, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, HP, who vide judgment dated 1.6.2017, dismissed the appeal, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the Panchayat (respondent No.2) came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, accused have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein their acquittal after setting aside judgment of conviction recorded by the court below. 4. Having heard parties and perused material available on record vis--vis impugned order passed by the learned court below, upholding the judgment of conviction recorded by the Gram Panchayat, this Court is not persuaded to agree with contention of Mr. 4. Having heard parties and perused material available on record vis--vis impugned order passed by the learned court below, upholding the judgment of conviction recorded by the Gram Panchayat, this Court is not persuaded to agree with contention of Mr. Abhishek, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused that the judgment passed by the appellate court is not based upon proper appreciation of evidence and law, rather this Court finds that appellate Court has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously and there is no scope of interference as far as this Court is concerned. This Court is not in agreement with learned counsel for the petitioner that Panchayat ought to have followed procedure as prescribed under Criminal Procedure Code while conducting trial because Section 55 (1) of HP Panchayat Raj Act, clearly lays down the procedure to be followed by the Panchayat while conducting trial pursuant to challan, if any, filed by the police. Otherwise also, Shri Abhishek, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused was unable to point out provision, if any, provided under any law to demonstrate that provision contained under various codes i.e. Civil Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure Code and Indian Evidence Act, are applicable in the proceedings conducted before the Panchayat, rather as has been taken note herein above, proceedings, before the Gram Panchayat are to be conducted in manner as provided in Section 55 (1) of the HP Panchayati Raj Act. 5. Otherwise also, this Court after having perused material available on record finds that accused despite having received summons repeatedly failed to appear before the Panchayat, but despite that Panchayat concerned afforded various opportunities to the accused to put forth their case. It clearly emerges from the record that complainant successfully proved on record that on the date of alleged incident, accused gave beatings to the complainant when he asked not to carry cattle through his courtyard. Order passed by the gram Panchayat further reveals that during pendency of the case before the gram Panchayat, accused were advised not to take their cattle through courtyard, but despite that accused took their cattle through the courtyard of the complainant and as such, gram Panchayat was compelled to impose fine of Rs. 10 each on the accused. 6. Order passed by the gram Panchayat further reveals that during pendency of the case before the gram Panchayat, accused were advised not to take their cattle through courtyard, but despite that accused took their cattle through the courtyard of the complainant and as such, gram Panchayat was compelled to impose fine of Rs. 10 each on the accused. 6. Consequently, in view of the discussion made herein above, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the appellate court, which is otherwise based upon proper appreciation of evidence and law and as such, same is upheld. Present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merits.