STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. JAI DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondents were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 144, 149, 427, 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 5.6.2004. The State felt aggrieved, hence the present appeal.

(2.) IN short, the prosecution case can be stated thus. The parties belong to village Fang war. Khasra No. 139 is "abadi deh" where there are 3 -4 houses existing, one of which belongs to the complainant party and Respondent No. 1, who is son of Brestu Ram, claims that old house was also existing, adjacent to the house of the complainant which was constructed by his father and after his death it was inherited by him. With respect to the ownership of that land neither the complainant nor the accused have produced any document on record. The Respondents alleged that their old house was dismantled by the complainant party and in place thereof a new house was being constructed by them forcibly and a civil suit was filed by them wherein the stay order was issued, whereas, complainant alleged that PW3 Karam Singh had purchased the old house from Brestu, father of Respondent No. 1, since then it was in his possession and where after he dismantled it and had been raising a new construction, contract of which was given to PW2 Saran Dass vide agreement Ext.PW2/A executed on 16.41999. It is alleged that when one storey upto height of 9 feet was completed. On 26.4.1999, the Respondents formed unlawfully assembly dismantled the newly constructed house of Karam Singh aforesaid and threatened the complainant party with dire consequences and fled away. Consequently, report was made to the police on the next day, which culminated into present FIR. Police visited the spot, prepared the site plan of the place of incident, recorded the statement of the witnesses and after completion, presented Challan under the Sections aforesaid in the Court for the trial.

(3.) SHRI A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that there is positive evidence on the record that the house in question was dismantled in the presence of eye witnesses cited by the prosecution, who also did not dispute the said fact and the learned trial Court attached undue importance to the minor constructions occurring in the statements of the witnesses and wrongly acquitted.