State of Himachal Pradesh vs Jai Dev and Others

Surinder Singh, J.—The Respondents were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 144, 149, 427, 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 5.6.2004. The State felt aggrieved, hence the present appeal.

In short, the prosecution case can be stated thus. The parties belong to village Fang war. Khasra No. 139 is "abadi deh" where there are 3-4 houses existing, one of which belongs to the complainant party and Respondent No. 1, who is son of Brestu Ram, claims that old house was also existing, adjacent to the house of the complainant which was constructed by his father and after his death it was inherited by him. With respect to the ownership of that land neither the complainant nor the accused have produced any document on record. The Respondents alleged that their old house was dismantled by the complainant party and in place thereof a new house was being constructed by them forcibly and a civil suit was filed by them wherein the stay order was issued, whereas, complainant alleged that PW3 Karam Singh had purchased the old house from Brestu, father of Respondent No. 1, since then it was in his possession and where after he dismantled it and had been raising a new construction, contract of which was given to PW2 Saran Dass vide agreement Ext.PW2/A executed on 16.41999. It is alleged that when one storey upto height of 9 feet was completed. On 26.4.1999, the Respondents formed unlawfully assembly dismantled the newly constructed house of Karam Singh aforesaid and threatened the complainant party with dire consequences and fled away. Consequently, report was made to the police on the next day, which culminated into present FIR. Police visited the spot, prepared the site plan of the place of incident, recorded the statement of the witnesses and after completion, presented Challan under the Sections aforesaid in the Court for the trial.

Finding a prima facie case against the Respondents, the learned trial Court charge-sheeted, tried and at the end of trial acquitted them.

Shri A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that there is positive evidence on the record that the house in question was dismantled in the presence of eye witnesses cited by the prosecution, who also did not dispute the said fact and the learned trial Court attached undue importance to the minor constructions occurring in the statements of the witnesses and wrongly acquitted.

On the other hand, Shri G.R. Palsra, learned Counsel for the Respondents, supported the judgment of acquittal and further ventilated that since 1966 the parties were locked into litigation. The house in question pertains to them and civil suit was also pending against the complainant-party and stay order was issued and it was a false case foisted upon them on account of old rivalry.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully and meticulously examined the evidence on record.

As already stated above, the "abadi" area wherein the disputed house is located falls in khasra No. 139. None of the parties are in possession of any document qua title and possession. But, however, it has come in the statements of PW1 Nanak Chand, PW2 Saran Dass, PW3 Karam Singh, PW4 Daulat Ram and PW5 Nand Lal that there was an old house which was owned by Brestu, father of Respondent Jai Dev and PW1 stated that it was purchased from Brestu.

Statement of PW5 is quite important. In cross-examination he admitted that the old house was that of Jai Dev son of Brestu and all these witnesses admitted the old litigation inter se the parties with effect from the year 1966. Further PW5 Nand Lal admitted that a stay order was also issued with respect to the house in question against the complainant party and it has come in the statements of the aforesaid witnesses that the old house was dismantled by the complainant party and in its place, they tried to construct a new house on the said place which is claimed by the Respondents.

The Investigating Officer also admitted in his cross-examination that Karam Singh and Nanak Chand dismantled the house of the Respondents, however, he has shown ignorance about the stay order against the complainant party.

On the critical examination of the aforesaid evidence the very fact of possession, of the alleged dismantled house is in question. As already stated above, no document of title or possession was produced by the complainant party and with respect to possession the evidence of both the parties is equi-balanced. Therefore, in view of above, in my opinion, the offences charged against the Respondents could not be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the acquittal of the Respondents in the instant case cannot be interfered with. The appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.

The Respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of this case.