LAWS(HPH)-2007-10-68

STATE OF H. P. Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

Decided On October 23, 2007
State Of H. P. Appellant
V/S
RAMESH KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 5.2.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nurpur, Distt. Kangra, in Criminal Case No.1-2/94, titled as State v. Ramesh Kumar and others, acquitting the accused of the charged offence under sections 325 & 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) ON the basis of the statement (mark 'X') of Shri Budhi Singh (PW-5), FIR (Ext.M-1) dated 10.9.1999 was registered with Police Station, Nurpur, Distt. Kangra under 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Sections 323 & 342 read with Section 34 IPC. As per the case of the prosecution, accused No.1 & 2 gave beatings to PW-5 with fist blows and accused No.3 who is the brother of PW-5 tied him with rope and snatched the bamboo which he was carrying. Complainant's wife also came at the spot and she was also beaten by the said accused persons. Pardhan Harbans Lal, Lambardar Beli Ram and Up-Pradhan Dharam Singh after reaching the spot, intervened and rescued the complainant. The matter was investigated and the material documents were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. In the present case, the injured was not got medically examined by the police but he himself got examined from Dr. A. K. Mahajan (PW-1). However, his Medico Legal Certificate was taken into possession by the police which is Ext.PW-1/A. The rope Ext.P-1 was recovered vide recovery memo Ext.PW-2/A. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court for trial.

(3.) AFTER examining the material on record as also the depositions of the witnesses, the Court below came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The independent witnesses, namely, Shri Dharam Chand (PW-2) and Shri Harbans Lal (PW-3) turned hostile and also did not support the case of the prosecution. Further, there was material on record to show that the dispute pertained to a passage over land which fell into the share of accused Karam Singh.