STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. PREM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The prosecution has examined ten witnesses in total. PW.1 Soma Devi is complainant and her husband PW.2 Nand Lal and daughter PW.3 Sapna Kumari have been examined as spot witnesses. Other witnesses are formal in nature, who have performed their role in completion of investigation. In para-25 onwards of the impugned judgment, the trial Court has discussed the evidence, wherein glaring contradictions in the statements of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 affecting very genesis of prosecution story have been noticed with observation that these witnesses are not sure about Khasra number of disputed land and it appears that it was a dispute with respect identity of the land. To identify land, on which dispute was there between complainant and accused party, nothing material has been placed on record and even the revenue record, establishing ownership of PW.2 Nand Lal upon the land, on which alleged incident had taken place, has been placed on record and proved in accordance with law and, therefore, evidence with respect to demarcation has rightly been discarded by the trial Court for want of evidence.

(3.) Considering contradictions and lack of material placed on record, trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused person for want of cogent, reliable and convincing evidence. As such, he is entitled for benefit of doubt.