IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 180 of 2013 Reserved on: 24.02.2026 Date of Decision: 11.03.2026 State of H.P. ...Appellant Versus Punjab Singh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Appellant/State: Mr. Prashant Singh, Deputy Advocate General.

For the Respondent : Mr. Parth Sanar, Advocate, vice Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.09.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. (1), Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341 and 427 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.)

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police filed a charge sheet against the ac.cused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341 and 427 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant, Amarjeet Singh (PW-2 ), had purchased the land in Mauja Bhangani and Singohpura. The accused used to interfere with his land. The in formant filed a civil suit and obtained an injunction orrder from the court. The informant made a complaint to the Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), and the accused had assured in writing not to interfere with the informant’s land. The informant was coming to Paonta Sahib on 27^th June 2006 in his vehicle bearing registration number CH- 03E-8907 at about 11:45 AM. The accused parked his motorcycle at village Khodawalla and obstructed the informant’s passage. Kinnaur Singh and 5–6 persons were accompanying the accused. They abused the informant, and when the informant enquired about the reason, the accused alongwith his brother Kinnaur Singh and another person gave him beatings with kicks and fist blows. The informant’s shirt was torn in the incident. Pawan Kumar (PW-3) and Parvinder rescued the informant from the accused. The accused pelted stones at the informant’s vehicle, and it was damaged in the incident. The incident was reported to the police, and an FIR (Ex. PW-1/A) was registered. SI M.ohar Singh (PW5) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex. PW-5/A). He took the photographs (Ex. P1 to Ex. P7) whose negatives are E x. P8 to Ex. P14). He recorded the statements of witnesoses as per their version. He found after the investigation that only accused Punjab Singh was involved in the incident, hrence the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court against the accused, Punjab Singh.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under sections 341 and 427 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined five witnesses to prove its case. Inspector Manish Chauhan (PW1) signed the FIR. Amarjit Singh (PW2) is the informant/victim. Pawan Kumar (PW3) and Kaka Ram (PW4) are eyewitnesses. SI Mohar Singh (PW5)

investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section

313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case in its entiret.y. He stated that he had obtained an injunction order against the informant who had cut trees from the government land. The informant tried to hit the motorcycle of the accused with his car, and the accused had also reportedo the matter to the police. He examined Rupender Singh (DW 1) and Om Prakash (DW2) to prove his innocence. r

6. Learned Trial Court held that the informant had exaggerated and improved his version in the Court. His testimony that the accused