SALIG RAM Vs. PIARE LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred by the complainant against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class(2), Shimla, acquitting all the respondents for offences under Sections 147, 447,427,323,506 read with Section 149 IPC. The petitioner who was the complainant registered an FIR with the Police Station, Dhali on the allegation that on 20.10.2001, at about 8 P.M.at New Deoli Colony, Kamlanagar, Shimla, the respondents formed an unlawful assembly and were armed with a Jhabbal (an iron rod used in construction), committed house trespass on the property of the complainant and demolished and uprooted lintel on the third floor of his building. When he objected, all the respondents rained fist blows on him resulting in injuries to him. His clothes were torn in the scuffle which ensued.

(2.) On consideration of the evidence of the prosecution, the learned trial Magistrate framed five points for determination, the first and the most crucial being as to whether the accused persons committed house tres pass and thereafter beat up the complainant. The learned Court, on appraisal of evidence of the witnesses and more especially the purported eye witnesses, discarded their statements holding that it would be unsafe to rely upon them. The Court reaches this conclusion after a detailed consideration of the evidence on record. The Court also holds that there are a number of civil and criminal cases pending between the parties.

(3.) In revisional jurisdiction, it is not for me to reappreciate the entire evidence. To recapitulate, the learned Court holds that the statement of PW-2 Chuni Lal cannot be relied upon as he claimed his presence on the spot, because he was visiting his brother in law in the same locality and then states in cross examination that he does not know as to what Prem Lal (his brother in law) is doing in life. Similarly, the statement of PW-4 Deepika Sharma, daughter of the complainant is at variance with the story put forth by the prosecution. So far as Sh. Salig Ram complainant is concerned, the Court holds that he being an interested witness and more especially when there are number of civil and criminal cases pending between the parties, cannot be relied upon.