STATE OF H.P. Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bilaspur, dated 13.5.1999, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections, 323,342,506 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on 11.3.1996, at about 10.00 A.M., when complainant Kala Devi returned after natural call to her house, the respondents were standing there and were trying to demolish/uproot her Danga. She asked the respondents not to uproot the Danga, on which they started giving her beatings with kick and fist blows and she became unconscious and she was tied with a tree by a rope at some distance from the place of occurrence. When she regained her consciousness, she found her tied with tree by the rope and the respondents were uprooting and dismantling her Danga. She raised hue and cry and on hearing her noise, PWs Pano Devi and Kallan Devi came there and one Kala Ram also reached there who untied the complainant from the tree. A report was lodged with the police and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court who tried the respondents under the above sections resulting in their acquittal.

(3.) THE submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General were that the offence stands proved from the evidence and the statement of the complainant has been corroborated by other evidence also as well as the fact that her Danga was dismantled on that day and since guilt of the respondents was established beyond reasonable doubt, the findings of the learned trial Court to the contrary are liable to be reversed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents had supported the impugned judgment for the reasons given therein supplementing it by the submission that the statement of the Medical Officer does not corroborate the testimony of the complainant and there were villagers present on the spot, but they were not examined and the solitary statement of the complainant was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondents. It was also submitted that the findings of the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court.