IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 370 of 2002 Decided on: 24.3.2009 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Maya Dass & ors. ..…Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant : Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant A.G. For Respondents : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Surjit Singh,J. (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 12.11.2001 of learned Trial Magistrate, whereby respondents, who are husband and wife, have been acquitted of charge, under Sections 324 and 323 readwith Section 34 IPC. 2. Police filed a report, under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the respondents alleging that on 23rd May, 2001, around 5.00 P.M. they caused hurt to Jai Karan PW3 and his wife Khinni Devi PW4 when the latter objected to the fencing of a common embankment of the fields of the parties. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Trial Court has acquitted the respondents holding that the evidence of the injured is self contradictory and the alleged independent eye witnesses have not corroborated the prosecution version. 3. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General and the learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the record. Testimony of the injured couple does not inspire confidence because of serious contradictions appearing therein. According to PW3 Jai Karan injury was caused to his wife Khinni Devi by means of a ‘tangar’ by respondent Maya Dass, but Khinni Devi herself does not even speak of any weapon like ‘tangar’ what to speak of her having been inflicted any injury by means of the same. According to her, she was given a push by respondent Rashmo Devi and when she fell she was beaten up with a ‘danda’ and thereafter with a scythe by Rashmo Devi alone. Again Jai Karan PW3 says that he was assaulted with a ‘darat’ by Maya Dass but PW4 Khinni Devi says that her husband Jai Karan PW3 was inflicted injuries with darat by Rashmo Devi. 4. Doctor’s testimony shows that all the injuries noticed on the persons of the injured couple were minor in nature and could have been sustained while conducting agricultural operations. 5. In view of the above stated position, I see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh),J. March 24, 2009 (vs)