STATE OF H.P. Vs. PREM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kasauli at Solan in case No. 17/2 of 1999/96 decided on 26.4.2000 whereby he has acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Sections 341/325/323/506 read with Section 34 IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 28.6.1995 PW-1 Naresh Kumar, son of complainant Ratti Ram was carrying some coal loaded on camels and when he reached the house of Dev Raj at 4.30 p.m. the accused stopped the camels and entered into an altercation with PW-1 Naresh Kumar. Thereafter the complainant was informed and he reached the spot of occurrence. When he reached the spot, the accused persons beat up the complainant, Ratti Ram and his teeth was injured in the fight. Ratti Ram filed a complaint and on the basis of this complaint, an FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out and after investigation challan was filed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial the accused have been acquitted. Hence this appeal.

(3.) PW -3, Ratti Ram, has given a similar version. He, however, states that one Pritam Singh had informed him that the camels being taken by his son had been stopped by the accused. According to him 3/4 of his teeth were broken in the fight. The version of Ratti Ram is not consistent with the version given by him in the FIR in which there is no mention of any teeth being broken. This witness in cross examination has also admitted that there is long standing litigation going on between him and the accused for the last 20 years. In his statement in court, PW-1 states that camels were stopped near the house of Bheem Singh, whereas in the FIR, it has been stated that camels were stopped near the house of Dev Raj. PW-2 and PW-4 who are so called independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution version and in fact they have stated that nothing happened in their presence. Though they have been declared hostile and cross examined at length, nothing material has been elicited in their cross examination.