IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.355 of 1998 Decided on : May 13, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Hardev and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General, and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents: M/s Karan Singh and Hoshiar Kaushal, Advocates. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 29th September, 1997 of the trial Court, i.e. Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmour at Paonta Sahib, whereby respondents Hardev Singh and others, who were tried for offences, under Sections 147, 324 and 326, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution was that on 29th May, 1993, a marriage was being solemnized of a family member of Chuhar Singh, in village Kashipur. All the respondents were dancing. A feast had been arranged for the villagers. When Bhawani Singh (PW-2) went to take part in that feast, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… he was caught hold of by the respondents and was stabbed repeatedly with a knife by respondent Hardev Singh and given a blow of knuckleduster by respondent Gulshan Kumar and other respondents joined hands with respondents Hardev Singh and Gulshan Kumar and also used dandas to hit him. Incident was witnessed by Naresh Kumar and Ram Pal. Gian Chand, with whom PW-2 Bhawani Singh was employed as a servant to help him in agricultural pursuits, also claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. 3. Prosecution examined Gian Chand, Bhawani Singh and the abovenamed two independent eye-witnesses. Both these alleged independent eye-witnesses turned hostile. Trial Court has acquitted the respondents, holding that there was enmity between the parties and independent eye-witnesses having not supported the prosecution version, it was not safe to convict the respondents. 4. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 5. From a perusal of the record, we find that the charge framed by the trial Court is defective, inasmuch as the victim of the offence named in the charge is not Bhawani Singh, but his employer Gian Chand. On the basis of this charge, it is not possible to determine the alleged …3… liability of the respondents. Charge is required to be amended. Consequently, we set aside the impugned judgment of the trial Magistrate and remand the case to him, with a direction to re-frame the charge, indicating Bhawani Singh as the victim therein and to retry and decide the case afresh, in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Magistrate on 24th May, 2010. ( Surjit Singh ), J May 13, 2010(sd) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J