STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. DAYA SAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State appellant has felt aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court, in Criminal case No.53-II/02, decided on 12.7.1999. The leave to appeal was granted on 28.4.2000 by this court and now the matter has been taken for final hearing.

(2.) SHRI V.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General for the State has ventilated that the impugned judgment of acquittal is unsustainable, on the ground that the learned trial court has not interpreted the evidence of prosecution in the right perspective, which has caused the material prejudice to the case of the prosecution. On the other hand, Miss Rashmi Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while supporting the impugned judgment of acquittal has forcefully argued that the prosecution witnesses examined by the trial court has given a different version than that initially set and the ingredients of the offence charged were not met.

(3.) PRECISELY , the case of the prosecution has been that the lift irrigation scheme was sanctioned by the State Government from village Bassa to Village Sukhnara. Later in the year 1978 a water channel was also provided for irrigation, to the lands of the villagers of Katholi upto RD 345. It is alleged that the respondent herein had constructed the shops on the cyphon of the water channel in Khasra No.773 of Mauja Nagrota Surian, District Kangra, thereby blocking the free flow of water to the said beneficiaries. Thus, a complaint was sent by C.R. Premi (PW4), to the vigilance department of the State, on which a FIR No.21/1991 was registered on 3rd April, 1991, under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent.