State of H.P. vs Panjku Ram

Surinder Singh, J.—Respondents were acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 326 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code in case FIR No. 232/1996 registered in Police Station Sarkaghat. Thus, their acquittal has been challenged in the present appeal by the State.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

Admittedly, complainant Kaushalya Devi was married to Respondent Panjku Ram more than two decades ago. From this wed-lock, a son PW3 Mast Ram was born. Both the parties, during the subsistence of their marriage did not pull on well, as such they are locked in the litigation for more than a decade. The complainant was residing in the matrimonial village along with her son separately. She was also awarded the maintenance amount from Respondent Panjku Ram who was a Government employee. Sneh Lata Respondent is a daughter from the second wife. Complainant Kaushlya Devi as well as her son and other witnesses of the prosecution admitted that paddy crop was sown by the Respondent. They also admitted that the complainant party was not in possession of the land of Respondent Panjku Ram. It was in the month of October, 1996 when paddy crop was ripe for harvesting, complainant Kaushalya Devi along with her son started harvesting the crop without the consent of the Respondents. Respondents, on coming to know upon the stealthy act of the complainant, desisted her and her son from cutting the crop. As per defence case, when they raised alarm, complainant while running from the field fell - 3 down and sustained injuries with her own sickle. Though the defence alleged is denied but it has been also categorically admitted by the Investigating Officer PW6 Sub Inspector Krishan Dutt that it was a stealthy act and attempt of Kaushalya Devi to harvest the paddy crop of the Respondents.

The parties are in conflict with each other on the matrimonial dispute for the last couple of years. Kaushalya Devi was not in the settled possession of the property in question. Her story is not corroborated by the alleged eye witnesses, namely, Dhari, Jangi and Kashmir Singh.

Pertinently, Dhari and Jangi were not examined whereas Kashmir Singh was examined but did not support the prosecution case on material particulars. He turned hostile to the prosecution and admitted that the field in question where the crop was being harvested by the complainant, was in the possession of the Respondents and crop was also sowed by them.

Further, in order to prove the grievous hurt or the injury alleged to have been sustained by the complainant, prosecution failed to procure the presence of the doctor who opined that the injury in question could be caused by the Darat and it was - 4 grievous in nature. A perusal of the Medico Legal Certificate also shows that the alleged history of sustaining injury is by an axe and not by Darat.

Therefore, in view of the above stated facts, prosecution could not be said to have legally proved the case against the Respondents. As such, findings of acquittal are borne out from the record and cannot be disturbed. Hence no interference in the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is called for. As such the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

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