AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
FIR NUMBER,"206/2002, dated 28.10.2002, registered under Section 323, 325 read with Section
34 IPC, in Police Station, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P.
Trial Court Case No.,"Police Challan No.7-II/2003, decided on 26.2.2010, by learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Sarkaghat, District Mandi.
this, she told them that she had thrown the cow-dung on their land. On hearing it, accused parties gave beatings as mentioned in the earlier version.",
PW-3 Sapna Devi; PW-4 Sunil Kumar; PW-5 Meera Devi; and PW-6 Lalit Kumar corroborated the statement of PW-2 Maya Devi.,
An analysis of the statements of the injured persons reveals that the occurrence had started because PW-2 Maya Devi had thrown cow-dung.,
Even as per the case of the prosecution, the mother of the accused persons had objected to Maya Devi throwing cow dung on their land. However,",
Maya Devi had disputed the claim of Himmati Devi, mother of the accused persons by saying that she and her family had owned such land. What is",
paramount is that if the accused were objected complainant Maya Devi from throwing cow-dung on her own land then certainly it would amount to a,
criminal offence. To prove that it was obligatory for the investigator to have carried out the demarcation of the spot of occurrence. However, he failed",
to do so. Moreover, it has been admitted by PW-1 Shali Ram that a complaint is pending in the Court of SDM at the instance of the accused.",
The pendency of a cross case shows that something was even done by the complainant party. However, a reading of the statements reveals that",
they were silently receiving all the injuries without any retaliation on their part. This silence is contradicted by a cross case. Given this, it is established",
that the complainant party did not approach the prosecution and the Court with clean hands and they had concealed their acts in the said scuffle. Out,
of the two independent witnesses, the prosecution did not examine Kashmir Singh. One of the independent witnesses Hans Raj, who testified as PW-",
8, has stated that when they reached on the spot, then accused persons and complainant party were arguing with each other. Thus, he did not support",
the allegations of injuries.,
Given above, the evidence led by the prosecution is not convincing enough to conclude beyond reasonable doubts that which party was the",
aggressor and whether the complainant party was throwing cow-dung on the land belonging to the accused or their own land. Thus, the evidence led",
by the persecution is not cogent enough to arrive at a conclusion of guilt. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable",
doubt.,
There is another aspect of this matter. A perusal of the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. reveals that it is not only skeleton in nature,",
but in question No.2, the court mentioned that the accused had caused injuries to complainant Shali Ram, Maya Devi, Sapna Devi, Meera Devi etc.,",
This is no way to put questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It appears that the concerned Court had treated the examination of the accused under,
Section 313 Cr.P.C.. as a token formality as if the provisions is formal in nature.,
I have gone through the impugned judgment, which is well reasoned and calls for no interference.",
In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed being devoid of merit. Bail bonds are discharged.",