STATE OF H.P. Vs. PINKU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bilaspur dated 30.3.1999 vide which the accused were acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 451, 323, 325 and 506 read with section 34 IPC.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on 12.1.1997 at 10 a.m. the statement of complainant Sukh Ram was recorded by the police under Section 154 Cr.P.C. In the said statement the complainant had alleged that on the previous day at about 9.30 p.m. members of Nehru Yuvak Mandal being under the influence of liquor came to his house, quarreled with him and gave him blows with danda and threw stones and he suffered injuries. They also took wood lying by the side of his house. In the complaint he alleged that when the quarrel took place the accused persons gave abuses at the spot. The accused Ramesh and Sanju gave him blows with danda and Pradhan of Nehru Yuva Mandal, namely, Bhandari, was also present there who gave him blows. He further alleged that he was having civil litigation regarding the land with these persons who had also earlier given beatings to him. He alleged that his wife Sundari and other ladies Kesari and Sunita also suffered injuries with danda and stones. He also alleged that his watch and one ring of Smt.Sunita were also lost in this process. On this report a case was registered and the respondents were tried by the learned trial court and the trial resulted in acquittal, hence this appeal.

(3.) ON the other hand, submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents was that it has been proved on record that the relations between the parties were strained. They were having civil litigation as well as criminal cases, therefore false case was planted by the complainant against the accused persons. It was also submitted that there were houses near the place of occurrence and 150 persons were there, but none of them was cited as a witness and the only witnesses cited and produced by the prosecution are the son and daughter of the complainant and other members of the family who suffered injuries in quarrel were also not produced by the prosecution and therefore their testimonies cannot be relied upon.