An appellate court should not interfere with a judgment of acquittal unless it is patently perverse or based on a misreading of material evidence, especially when two reasonable views are possible based on the record.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment H dated 22.2.2014, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, District Kangra, HP (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise toH the present appeal are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant Satya Devi (PW5) is the co-owner of the land. Accused Gulshana Devi and her son Vinay Kumar had started construction of a house on the joint land. Informant Satya Devi obtained an injunction order from the court of the learned Civ il Judge, Palampur, District Kangra, HP, however, the accused made preparations to lay the lintel despite the issuance of the injunction order. The informant and her daughter, Anita Devi (PW6), went to the spot to request the accused not to carry out the construction. Accused Gulshana Devi, her son Vinay Kumar, Veena Devi and other persons abused the informant and questioned her right to stop the construction. Pawna Devi told the persons present to throw the informant into the nallah. Pawna Devi gave beatings to the informant. Veena, Gulshana Devi and Ambey also gave her beatings. Anita Devi tried to rescue the informant, but Gulshana Devi gave her beatings. The informant and Anita Devi sustained injuries. The informant went to the Police Station and reported the matter to the police. The police recorded an entry (Ex.PW10/A) in the Police Station. An application (Ex.PW4/A) was filed for the medical examination of the injured. Dr. Karan Singh (PW4) medically examined Satya Devi and found multiple injuries on her person. He issued MLC (Ex.PW4/B). He also examined Anita Devi and found multiple injuries onu her person, which could have been caused within 24 houors. He advised an X-ray. A fracture of the proximal phalanCx of the 5th finger was detected on the X-ray. Hence, the nature of the injuries was stated to be grievous. MLC (Ex.PW4/C) and final opinion (Ex.PW4/D) were issued. The police registered the FIR (Ex.PW11/A) after the receipt of the H medical opinion. HC Ashok Kumar (PW12) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW12/A). He filed an application (Ex.PW12/B) and obtained the copies of Jamabandi and Tatima (Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B). He seized the discharge slip. Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, a challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

The learned Trial Court found sufÏcient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, they were charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution examined twelve witnesses to prove its case. Dr Kalpana Mahajan (PW1) went through the X-rays and issued the report. Krishan Pal (PW2) and Anita Devi (PW6) are the eyewitnesses. Dr Karan Singh (PW4) medically examined the informant and Anita Devi. Satya Devi (PW5) is the informant. Balak Ram (PW7) is the witness to the recovery of the documents. Des Raj (PW8) issued the copies of Jamabandis and Tatima. Tilak Raj (PW9) witnessed the seizure of the documents. Ravinder Chand (PW10) proved the entry in the daily diary. Yoginder Pal (PW11) registered the FIR. HC Ashok Kumar (PW12) investigated the matter.

The accused, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. They stated th