IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.80 of 2004 Decided on: 30.6.2010 State of H.P …..Appellant. VERSUS Davinder Kumar & ors. …..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr.Anup Chitkara, Advocate. Deepak Gupta,Judge (Oral). This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 4.11.2003 delivered by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo in Sessions Case No.2-2 of 2001 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 149 427, 506 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… 2. According to the prosecution, the complainant PW/2, Sukhi Ram runs a Kariyana shop in village Kafnoo. On 14.12.2000 at about 1.00 p.m., all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention attacked the complainant after entering into his shop. They dragged him out of his shop and threatened him with dire consequences. The glasses of the counters of the shop were broken by the accused. Stones were also pelted on the shop of the complainant and the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.25,000/- on account of damages to his goods. He thereafter, made a complaint Ext.PW2/A with the police on the same date on the basis of which FIR, Ext.PW-10/A was lodged. Thereafter, the police investigated the matter and challan was filed against the accused. They were charged with having committed the offences detailed here-in-above. They pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and claimed trial. After trial, they have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court. Hence the present appeal by the State. 3. At the outset, it may be mentioned that in the original complaint Ext.PW2/A, the accused had not mentioned the names of any witnesses who may have …3… witnessed the occurrence. However, in Court, as many as seven eye witnesses have been examined. Out of these seven eye witnesses, four are closely related to the accused, one is customer who had taken loan from him and two are independent witnesses who have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. 4. The learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that when the occurrence took place in the day time in the Bazar, it would not have been difficult to associate other independent witnesses. The learned Trial Court also came to the conclusion that the presence of the customer and the relatives at the spot was doubtful in view of the various contradictions between the statements and also on account of the fact that the name of these witnesses had not been mentioned in the original complaint filed, in writing, by the complainant. 5. It is also apparent from the evidence on record as admitted by the complainant himself that the police chowki is situated hardly at a distance of 25 metres from his shop. If such an occurrence had taken place, the police itself would have come to the spot immediately and there would have no need for a …4… complaint to be filed. An occurrence wherein ten people attacked a person, dragged him out of the shop, pelted stones and broke the glasses of the counters could not have been a silent operation which was not audible to the police at a distance of only 25 metres. 6. Another important factor is that though according to the accused, he was dragged out by 10 people and beaten by them, there are no injuries on his person. He was not even medically examined. His explanation is that in fact, he managed to escape from the clutches of the accused and hid in the store. This is totally contradictory to what is stated in the original complaint filed with the police. Therefore, the statement of the complainant cannot be believed. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the learned Trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. I find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly rejected. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. 30th June, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) (m) Judge