IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. : 92 of 2001 Reserved on: : 2.1.2008 Date of decision : 7.1.2008 State of H.P. … Appellant. Versus Kishan Lal and another. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the appellant. : Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. The respondents were prosecuted in case No. 50/2 of 1999/98 under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class(4), Shimla and were acquitted on 29.05.2000. The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondents. The facts in nutshell are that the complainant Kamal Thapa was the tenant of one Shri Gian Chand. On 12.10.1998 at about 9.45 A.M near Dhalli Chowk, Kamal Thapa came out of his house and accused Kishan Lal asked him about the News Paper. Thereafter, the complainant was beaten up by the accused persons and during the beatings his front tooth was broken. The matter was reported to the police on the basis of which F.I.R. Ext.PW-6/F was registered and the complainant was medically examined vide M.L.C. Ext.PW-7/A. The prosecution had examined as many as 9 witnesses to prove the case against the respondents. The respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court acquitted the respondents on 29.5.2000. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 The learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously contended that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused persons. He further contended that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution. Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate, had supported the judgement dated 29.5.2000. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. PW-1 Suresh Bala has stated that she had gone to the house of Kamal Thapa and the accused persons dragged him out of his house. She has further stated that Kamal Thapa was beaten by three ladies and two men and during the fight the tooth of Kamal Thapa was broken. She could not disclose the names of the accused persons. PW-2 is Kamala, wife of the complainant. She had stated that Dhani Ram and Puran Chand are her neighbours. She had further admitted that any noise on the road can be clearly heard in the house of Dhani Ram. PW-3 is Kumari Sonia. She had admitted that her father consumes liquor every day. PW-4 is complainant Kamal Thapa. He has stated that the accused persons had given him beatings with Dandas and fists. He has further admitted that families of Dhani Ram and Puran Chand live adjacent to his house. PW-6 is Tilak Chand, who was I.O. PW-7 is Dr. R.S.Minhas, who has issued M.L.C. Ext.PW-7/A after examining the complainant. The prosecution has not proved the recovery memo Ext.PW-2/A in accordance with law as the tooth (Ex.P-2) was not shown to any of the witnesses during the course of the trial. PW-2 Kamala and PW-3 Kumari Sonia had stated in their statement that the complainant was given beatings with the help of three Dandas and two Thapis. The same were never recovered by the police. PW-2 has stated that the complainant does not consume liquor, however, PW-3 has admitted that the complainant consumes liquor daily. PW-2 and PW-4 Kamal Thapa had stated that the house of Puran Chand and Dhani Ram are adjacent to their house but none was cited as witness during the course of trial. The only independent witness is PW-1 Suresh Bala but her house is situated at a distance from the house of the complainant and could not be supposed to be on the spot during odd hours, i.e. 9.00 P.M. 3 The trial Court after correctly appreciating the evidence has acquitted the respondents on 29.5.2000. This Court will not interfere in the well reasoned judgement of the trial Court dated 29.5.2000. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged. January 7, 2008. ( Rajiv Sharma), ™ Judge