LAWS(HPH)-2012-5-99

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. ANUP KUMAR

Decided On May 14, 2012
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Appellant
V/S
ANUP KUMAR S/O SH. RANJIT SINGH CASTE CHAUDHARY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State of H.P against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Kangra, dated 02.04.2004 vide which he had acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them under Sections 307,542,323/34 IPC.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on 30.12.1999 at 11:00 p.m. a Police Officer recorded the statement of one Sh. Parampal Singh under Section 154 Cr.P.C. In the said statement he alleged that their land dispute with their Taya (Uncle) Prabhat Singh was being settled in the Court and they were to record the compromise which could not be recorded due to shortage of time. On 30.12.99 at 8:30 p.m. he alongwith his family members were taking dinner. His Taya Prabhat Singh and Chacha (Uncle) Kartar Singh came to their house and he told them that since they have come to their house after 8/10 years so they should also take the dinner. He stated that the dinner was not served but by that time Navneet Kumari, respondent No.4, d/o Parbhat Singh and Anup Kumar, respondent No.1 elder son of Ranjit Singh came to their house and they had hidden one iron rod and khukhri in their clothes. They immediately started giving beatings to his brother Vijay Singh who was sitting on the bed and when he and his father tried to rescue him, the accused also attacked him. His brother Vijay Singh suffered injury on his stomach, shoulder and when they came out, Parbhat Singh (respondent No.3) gave a blow on his person with a khukhri and he suffered injury on his head and stomach and his father Amin Chand and other family members also suffered injuries. He stated that out side a whole family of Parbhat Singh, respondent No.3 was standing. He alongwith his brother PW-2 Vijay Singh had come to the hospital, Kangra where the Police Officer had reached and recorded his statement.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the record of the case.