STATE OF H.P. Vs. LAXMI RAMAN SON OF SH. NEK CHAND, R/O. VILLAGE BAG, TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTT. MANDI, HP. AND JITENDER KUMAR S/O. SH. NEK CHAND, R/O. BAG, TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karsog, dated 21.4.2005, vide which he acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 7.3.2004, at about 4.10.P.M., a report was lodged by PW -1 Umesh Kumar accompanied by his mother Gulabo Devi that today at about 11 -12.00 Noon, he alongwith his mother had gone to their field for ploughing and when he started ploughing, the respondents came there alongwitn Dandas and knife and he was given beatings with Dandas, whereas his mother was inflicted blows with sharp edged weapon on her hands and she suffered injuries on her fingers. His mother was also given beatings with Danda. Thereafter, the father of the accused, namely, Nek Chand and his mother also came there and asked them to kill the complainant and his mother. On this report, a rapat No. 10 dated 7.3.2011 was registered. The complainant and his mother were medically examined. On completion of the investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court against the respondents except under Section 447 I.P.C. However, on consideration, the learned trial Court framed the charge as detailed above against both the respondents under Section 447 IPC also and tried them leading to their acquittal.

(3.) ON appraisal of the allegations made in the complaint, it is clear that there is no mention of the land or its Khasra Number, in which the occurrence had taken place, so that the Court could infer from the perusal of the revenue record, if any, as to whether the complainant party was entered in possession of the land in question or not. There is nothing on record to show that any steps were taken by the Investigating Officer to take into possession the revenue record pertaining to the disputed land. However, the Investigating Officer PW -8 Krishan Lal has simply stated that copies of the sale deed and stay order were produced by the father of the accused persons and he saw them, but surprisingly he did not place the said copies on record for perusal. He stated that he returned those copies, which were relevant to determine the question as to which of the party was in possession of the suit land on the date of the occurrence.