IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.488 of 2001 Date of decision: June 20, 2008. State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Hakam Ram and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : None. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment of trial Magistrate, whereby the respondents, numbering six, who were tried for offences, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325 read with Section 149 IPC, have been acquitted. 2. As per prosecution story, residents of village Panjehra, Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, had taken a decision for Thikri Pehra in that village, every night, by able- bodied persons, because there was a spate of thefts in that village and the neighbouring villages. On 21.7.1997, injured PW-3 Ranbir Singh and PW-5 Makhan Singh, who are the residents of some other villages, were found present, under the projection of a closed tea shop in village Panjehra by the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… respondents. Taking them to be thieves, the respondents manhandled them, in the course of which both of them received simple injuries. PW-5 Makhan Singh also sustained a grievous injury on account of fracture of middle meta-carpal of his right foot. Police was called and both the above named witnesses were handed over to the police. Two days later PW-2 Gita Ram, father of PW-3 Ranbir Singh, lodged a report with the police that Ranbir Singh and Makhan Singh had been caused injuries by the respondents, while being members of an unlawful assembly. 3. Trial Court has acquitted the respondents holding that the injured were there in the village of the respondents, without any purpose and they having been found in that village in suspicious circumstances, respondents who were on watch and ward duty, cannot be said to have committed any offence by capturing them. It has also been held by the trial Court that a large number of persons were there on the spot and it is not clear from the testimony of the two injured, whether any of the respondents or other persons, forming the mob, caused injuries to them. 4. I have gone through the evidence and heard the learned Additional Advocate General. A reading of the testimony of the two injured, namely PW-3 Ranbir Singh and PW-5 Makhan Singh shows that they were present in the village of the respondents without any purpose. It has also come in the evidence that a mob gathered and caught hold of …3… the injured and some of the persons, forming the mob, gave them beatings resulting in injuries, mostly simple. Only one injury was grievous and that was on the foot of PW-5 Makhan Singh. This injury could have been received in the darkness, either on account of the foot of said Makhan Singh having got crushed under the foot of a resident of the village or due to fall etc. 5. In view of the above stated position, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Magistrate. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. June 20, 2008 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J