GEETA DEVI Vs. SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the complainant, who has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Chief Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?. Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur acquitting the respondents for offences under Sections 147, 148, 430, 379, 427, 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

(2.) THE case set out by the appellant-complainant is that the Gram Sabha Sudhar Samiti, Barog had collected a sum of Rs.4,500/- from each family which amount was also paid by the complainant to the Samiti. This money was required for the purchase of water pipes etc. The Samiti installed water pipes for village Barog from the storage tank for the purpose of distribution of water. The house of the complainant is 200 metres away from the storage tank and in these circumstances, the Gram Sabha Samiti had allowed her family to install an individual water tap at her own. The complainant was using the water from the tank after having incurred expenses for purchase/installation of water pipes. On 12.3.2001 at around 8 A.M. when the husband of the complainant was not present in the house, the accused persons along with some others formed an unlawful assembly and cut the pipes supplying water to the complainant's house with an iron blade and broke the pipe lines. Complainant informed her husband about this fact when he returned home, who in turn approached the Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Markand, who in turn conducted an inquiry about the incident from the accused persons, who persisted in their unlawful behaviour and refused to allow the installation of the water pipes due to which the complainant and her family members are suffering. The complaint then proceeds that the case was reported to the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur on 13.3.2001 and on the basis of this information/complaint, the police visited the spot and directed the accused persons to install the water pipes and return those pipes which they had taken away. Another application was submitted to the Station House Officer, Bilaspur on 26.3.2001 to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused but no action was taken and in these circumstances she had approached the trial court by way of instituting a complaint from which this appeal arises. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the evidence of the complainant, who appeared as CW1, Joginder CW2, Mast Ram CW3 and Hans Raj CW4, acquitted all the accused. I need not reiterate the entire evidence as the learned court below rightly notices that the complainant supports the allegation made in the complaint but the other witnesses do not corroborate the complainant on material particulars and the case was dismissed.

(3.) I have gone through the statements carefully and I am unable to subscribe to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. I notice that the complaint contains a number of pleadings on facts which could easily have been corroborated by the complainant. There is no evidence on the record to show that the complainant ever made any complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, any Police official or the Station House Officer. These vital facts were to be proved on the record by the appellant. There is no explanation as to why this evidence has been withheld.