STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAMESHWAR KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla in Case No. 117/2 of 1996, decided n 30.1.1999 whereby the accused have been acquitted of having committed offences punishable under Sections 325/506 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 30.8.1995 at about 6.00 p.m. PW-2, Kanta was cutting 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? grass in her fields when the accused Chander Shekhar came armed with a darat and accused Rameshwar Kumar armed with a Kulhari (axe) came to the spot. Accused Chander Shekhar dealt a blow of darat and accused Rameshwar dealt a blow of Kulhari on the right arm of Kanta due to which she sustained injuries. She raised an alarm and her father, complainant PW-1, Ram Chand immediately reached the spot where he was also beaten up by the accused. Thereafter some villagers, Chet Ram, Sukh Ram, Heera Singh etc. reached the spot and rescued Kanta and her father. FIR was lodged. Injured was medically examined and investigation completed and challan was filed in court. After appearance the accused were charged. They pleaded innocence and claimed trial. The learned trial court has acquitted the accused by the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal.

(3.) PW -1 Ram Chand is the complainant. He has made a similar statement and according to him he saw Rameshwar giving a blow of Kulhari on the right hand of his daughter and thereafter he lodged the FIR. In cross examination he has denied the suggestion that he is not the owner of the suit property. He, however, did not produce any document to show that he is the owner of the suit property. He denied the suggestion that Chando Devi was the owner of the property and had willed the same in favour of Rameshwar . He, however, was forced to admit that mutation in respect of the property has been entered in favour of Rameshwar and that the appeal filed by the witness (Ram Chand) was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner. He has denied the suggestion that they wanted to forcibly take possession of the disputed property. According to him the property was initially mortgaged with Chando Devi which had been redeemed.