Point of Law: Enmity is always a double-edged weapon. It can be the motive of offence or can be the means to falsely implicate the enemy.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Both these appeals are being decided by a common judgment as these arise out of the same judgment and involve identical questions of facts and law.

2. Learned Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Sirmour at Nahan tried the following persons for offences under Sections 447, 147, 506, 323, 325, 452 & 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and also Section 3 (1)(v)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989, in Sessions Trial No. 9-ST/7 of 2015.

1. Ram Swaroop, Son of Sh. Mast Ram, Resident of Village Kashmali, PO Sanaura, Tehsil and PS Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P.

2. Asha Devi, Wife of Sh. Ram Swaroop, Resident of Village Kashmali, PO Sanaura, Tehsil and PS Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P.

3. Mukesh@ Bittu, Son of Sh. Ram Swaroop, Resident of Village Kashmali, PO Sanaura, Tehsil and PS Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P.

4. Naveen Kumar @ Vipin, Son of Sh. Ram Swaroop, Resident of Village Kashmali, PO Sanaura, Tehsil and PS Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P.

5. Pravee Kumar @ Mithun, Son of Sh. Ram Swaroop, Resident of Village Kashmali, PO Sanaura, Tehsil and PS Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P.

6. Anju Kumari, Wife of Sh. Praveen Kumar @ Mithun, Resident of Village Kashmali, PO Sanaura, Tehsil and PS Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P.

7. Naveen Dhiman, Son of Sh. Ragwa Nand, Resident of Village Chandol, PO Drabla, Tehsil and PS Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P.

3. Vide Judgment dated 31.12.2016, Mukesh @ Bittu and Parveen Kumar@ Mithun, both sons of Ram Swaroop, were convicted for offences under Sections 323, 325 and 302 of IPC and sentenced as under: -

4. All other accused persons were acquitted of all the charges.

5. In Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 2017, convicts Mukesh @ Bittu and Praveen Kumar@ Mithun, have assailed their conviction ordered vide judgment dated 31.12.2016 and sentence order of the same date passed by the learned Special Judge, Sirmour at Nahan in Sessions Trial No. 9-ST/7 of 2015. In Criminal Appeal No. 281 of 2017, State has assailed the aforesaid judgment insofar as it recorded the acquittal of other accused persons.

6. The case as set up by the prosecution was that on 16.10.2014, a written complaint No.197/RGH, dated 16.10.2014 scribed by Mohan Singh (PW-1) was received at Police Station Rajgarh through Neeta Ram (PW-18). ASI Ram Swaroop accompanied by H.C. Ramesh Chand No. 501 and C. Ajay Kumar No. 403 and PW-18 Neeta Ram reached Ram Nagar in relation with aforesaid complaint, where PW-1, Mohan Singh got recorded his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C (Ext. PW1/A) alleging inter alia;

6.1. That in the year 2012 he along with his younger brother Neeta Ram had purchased the lqand comprised in Khasra No.859/737 measuring 5 bighas 2 Biswas (Ghasni) at village Kashmali Salogni from Vidya Sagar (PW-2) and other residents of Ram Nagar. Their ancestral land measuring 9 bighas 17 Biswas (Ghasni) was also adjacent to land purchased from Vidya Sagar. The land of Ram Swaroop, resident of village Kashmali was below their Ghasni. Since the time of purchase of land by PW-1 and PW-18 from PW-2, Vidya Sagar, Ram Swaroop and his family members were keeping grudge wi