STATE OF H.P. Vs. PURSHOTAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, in a Criminal Case No. 51-II of 1994, decided on 10.6.1999, whereby he has acquitted all the 17 accused of having committed offences under Sections 147/149/427/430/506 I.P.C.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 19.3.1994 at about 8.00 AM at Barnjar, Tappa Jassai, Tehsil Nadaun, the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of uprooting the pipes and obstructing the flow of water to the land of Bagga Ram, complainant. It was further alleged that the accused not only uprooted the alkothene pipes but also uprooted the GI pipes going to the land of Bagga Ram and stopped the flow of water from the natural source to his land. It was further alleged that when Bagga Ram and his family members i.e. Satya Devi, Basu Dev and Veena Devi objected, they were beaten up by the accused. The accused were summoned and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined nine witnesses in all.

(3.) ANOTHER important point which has to be noted is that admittedly there was a civil dispute with regard to the rights in the water source between the villagers and Bagga Ram. From a perusal of Ext.D-2, it is apparent that on 1.2.1994 the villagers had filed a suit against Bagga Ram praying that he should be restrained from taking water or diverting its flow from the water channel/water stream to his own land. The defence of the complainant was that in fact he had been utilizing this water for the last 20 years. On 1.2.1994 the Court had granted interim injunction in favour of the villagers. On 16.3.1994 the Court had modified this order and directed both the parties to maintain status quo. Incident is stated to have taken place on 19.3.1994. In the written statement which was filed on or before 16.3.1994, the defendant (complainant) has taken up the plea that the plaintiffs (accused) had already damaged the water pipe of the defendant. Obviously this written statement had been filed on or before 16.3.1994. Thereafter, the complaint was filed on 19.3.1994. Obviously the complaint was filed to obviate the order dated 16.3.1994. It is quite possible that the complaint was filed as a rebuff to the civil suit.