IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. : 118 of 2001 Reserved on: : 1.1.2008 Date of decision : 4.1.2008 State of H.P. … Appellant. Versus Roshan Lal and another. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the appellant. : Mr. M.A.Khan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr.N.K.Thakur, Advocate Rajiv Sharma, J. The respondents were prosecuted in case No. 73-II-1994 under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una and were acquitted on 26.9.2000. The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondents. The facts in nutshell as gathered from the judgement of the trial Court are that on 6.7.1994 at about 10 A.M. the complainant Shiv Kumar (PW-1) was returning from Lathiani to his house situated at Heru and when he reached near his field he noticed that respondent Roshan Lal was collecting waste grass from his field and throwing it to the field of the complainant. Complainant requested him not to do so but the accused Roshan Lal started giving beatings to the complainant. Anju Devi, Situ and Rakesh Kumar also arrived on the spot and they also gave beatings to the complainant by fists and kicks. One Thunia Ram narrated this incident to the father of the complainant and thereafter the complainant’s father alongwith his son and wife went to the place of incident from where the complainant was brought to the house and thereafter the complainant alongwith his 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? father Situ Ram and his brother Kamal Dev went to the house of the accused Roshan Lal. When the complainant’s father made inquiry from the accused about the incident the accused also inflicted stick blow on the person of Kamal Dev. The FIR was registered and consequently the matter was investigated by the police. The prosecution had examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court acquitted the respondent on 26.9.2000. 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. N.K.Thakur, Advocate, had supported the judgement dated 26.9.2000. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. As per the contents of FIR Ext.PW-7/B Anju and Sita had also inflicted fist blows on the person of Shiv Ram but neither of them had been made accused in the case. Similarly, as per the contents of FIR Suresh Kumar, Baldev and Vidya Sagar had instigated accused to give beatings to the complainant Shiv Kumar but none of them had either been made accused or witness in the case. In examination-in-chief PW-5 Kamal Dev had stated that accused Rakesh Kumar was present at the spot and he tried to give stick blows to him but he saved himself but in cross-examination he had admitted that accused Rakesh Kumar was not present at the spot at the time of the incident. Due to this major contradiction the statement of PW-5 Kamal Dev cannot be believed. Shri Sita Ram (PW-2) did not state that accused Rakesh Kumar was armed with stick. Similarly, Shiv Kumar PW-1 has also not stated about the stick blows allegedly tried to be inflicted by Rakesh Kumar to Kamal Dev. Kamal Dev while appearing as PW-5 has stated that Anju and Situ were also present on the spot at the time of incident but neither Sita Ram nor Shiv Kumar have stated about the presence of Anju and Situ at the time of incident. The independent witness Thunia Ram (PW-3) has not supported the prosecution case. He was declared hostile. The prosecution has failed to explain the injuries received by accused Roshan Lal as per Ext.D1 (MLC). He has received as many six injuries. The trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that there are material contradiction in the statement of PW-1 Shiv Kumar, PW-2 Sita Ram, PW-5 Kamal Dev. The trial Court after correctly appreciating the evidence has acquitted the accused on 26.9.2000. This Court will not interfere in the well reasoned judgement of the trial Court dated 26.9.2000. Consequently there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged. January 04, 2008 ( Rajiv Sharma), ™ Judge