IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.286 of 2003. Date of Decision:20..8.2010. _______________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Petitioner. Versus Trilok Singh and others. .….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondents. : Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The State is aggrieved by the judgment of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class (1), Dharamshala, acquitting the respondents for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is undisputed before me that for the same incident two cases were filed one by complainant Onkar Singh and another by injured party. Two F.I.Rs namely, 11 of 2002 and 12 of 2002 were filed by the complaints. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that even in that case Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes . 2 the complainants in the present case have been acquitted in the case filed by the respondents herein. 3. Adverting to the facts of the case, the prosecution case is that on 8.1.2001 at around 7.45 a.m. , complainant Onkar Singh along with Duni Chand, Piar Chand, Bir Singh, Ashok Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar were going to the village at Basnoor. At around 8 a.m., accused Balbir Singh and Mohinder Singh who were armed with swords, Tarlok Singh was having a danda in his hand and Sahni Devi attacked complainant Onkar Singh by first obstructing his way on the public path and then setting upon him with swords and danda. Statement of Onkar Singh under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext.PW1/A was recorded and on the basis of the statement F.I.R. Ext. PW1/B was recorded. 4. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses. The court notices that F.I.R. No.12 of 2002 has been lodged for the same incident by the respondents. The learned court considering the evidence of the complainant as also PW10 Dr. Mohan Chaudhary, Radiologist Dr.J.R.Azad (PW9), held that the offence against the respondents was not proved. The contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was that the case of the prosecution has been corroborated by PW2 Prittam Singh, who is an independent witness, complainant PW1 Onkar Singh, PW10 Dr. Mohan Chaudhary and PW9 Radiologist Dr.J.R.Azad. Considering their evidence, the court holds that in Ext.PW11/A, it is stated by complainant Onkar Singh that Bir Singh and Duni Chand were attacked by 3 accused Mohinder Singh with sword but PW7 Duni Chand who was examined in Court has not corroborated the statement of complainant and said that he was attacked by Tarlok Singh. 5. Bir Singh was examined by the Medical Officer and no injury has been proved on his person. The court has considered the statement of PW1 Onkar Singh Ext.PW11/A that he was attacked by accused Balbir Singh with sword due to which he sustained injuries on his head but when complainant Onkar Singh has been examined in court, he stated that he was attacked by Mohinder Singh with sword. Similarly, he states that accused Tarlok Singh attacked his nephew Sanjeev Kumar with stick but when PW4 Sanjeev Kumar appeared in court he changed his statement that he was beaten up with iron rod. 6. The evidence of PW2 Pritam Singh has not been accepted by the court as it is in contradiction to the evidence of Onkar Singh, Duni Chand, Ashok Kumar and Bir Singh. 7. One more fact is considered by the learned trial Court that PW7 Duni Chand admitted in his cross-examination that when the occurrence took place, only the complainant came to the house of the accused party in which the respondents-accused sustained injury which fact is corroborated by PW10 Dr. Mohan Chaudhary. 8. The recovery of so called weapons of assault is also doubtful. PW8 Khem Raj is an attesting witness to the seizure memo Ext.PW8/A to Ext.PW8/C. He has admitted in his cross-examination that none of the so called weapons of 4 offence Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 were produced by the accused before the police. These contradictions according to the learned trial court are fundamental and go to the very root of the case. In these circumstances, all the respondents were acquitted of the offences. All that I need to say is that the factum of second F.I.R. having been registered by the accused has not been considered by the learned court below. It seems, if the version of both the parties is accepted, there seems to have been a free for all over some kind of dispute genesis of which remains un-known and no effort have been made by the prosecution to establish that. I making this observation as the evidence in this case is totally lacking and even the case which was instituted pursuant to F.I.R. No. 12 of 2002, has been dismissed by the court below. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. August 20, 2010(R)