STATE OF H.P. Vs. DAYA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 3, Shimla, dated 19.3.2005, vide which, the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 451, 147, 148, 323, 506 read with 149 of I.P.C.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 30.8.2003, a report was lodged with the police by complainant Rattan Lal that on the previous day in the evening of 29.8.2003, wife of Daya Ram was opening a drainage and this was objected to by the complainant 'swife as to why the drainage was being constructed towards their tank. It was alleged that at this instance wife of Daya Ram named Parwati and Daya Ram gave abuses to his wife and also gave a threat to take her life. On the next morning at 6.45 P.M., he was standing in his courtyard and Daya Ram was also standing near his cow shed. He asked him as to why he had misbehaved with his wife. At this instance, Daya Ram came to his courtyard alongwith Danda and gave Danda blows to him on his head. Thereafter, the remaining accused persons also came there in furtherance of their common intention and all of them gave beatings to him with legs and fists. On hearing his cries, his wife came to the spot and she was also beaten and they also gave a threat to take their lives. On this report, a rapat was registered and after medical examination and investigation, the challan was filed before the Court of learned trial Court, who tried the respondents, leading to their acquittal, as detailed above.

(3.) ON appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that complainant Rattan Lal as PW -1, has alleged in the report that he was standing in his courtyard, while accused Daya Ram was standing near his cowshed when he asked as to why they abused his wife. When the said complainant appeared in the witness box as PW -1, he simply stated that he had requested the accused as to why he gave abuses to his wife on the previous evening. However, he did not state that the accused and his family members came to his courtyard and criminally trespassed into the same. He was silent as to where the occurrence had taken place. PW -2 Naina Devi also stated that on the second day when her husband asked Daya Ram in regard to the abuses, he started giving beatings to him. She stated that she came to the courtyard on hearing the noise, but did not specifically stated as to where the occurrence had taken place in their courtyard or all the accused persons had come to their courtyard. On the other hand, PW -3 Kumari Rekha daughter of PW -1 is specific that her father had gone alone to enquire from the accused as to why he had abused her mother, which suggests that the complainant had gone to the house of the accused or his courtyard and no accused persons had trespassed into his courtyard. She stated that firstly her father had gone and thereafter her mother had gone, meaning thereby the occurrence had not taken place in the courtyard of complainant party as alleged in the complaint or sought to be proved from the evidence.