IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.605 of 2010. Date of decision: 05.08.2010. State of H.P. … …Petitioner Versus Mukesh Kumar … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents: None. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This petition has been filed by the State against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nalagarh acquitting the respondent for offences under Sections 323 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story is that complainant Roop Ram filed a complaint Ex.PW-7/A alleging that his niece Ms.Anjali, who was studying in 6th class in Government High School Badhokhari, was beaten up on 22.1.2007 by Mr.Mukesh Kumar, who was PTI in the School. The complaint is that he has used a stick (danda) and that the child refused to attend the school 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 because of fear in her mind after she was trashed. The case was investigated by ASI Balbir Singh, who prepared challan etc. PW-1 Kiran, is a child witness, but her capacity to testify was tested by the learned Court and it is found that she is capable of appearing as a witness on oath. She has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-2 Hem Lata, who is again a classmate of the complainant, has also not supported the case of the prosecution. In-fact she admitted that the father of Anjali had contested elections for the post of Pradhan against the father of the accused. PW-3 Praveen Kaushal has also refuted the prosecution case. PW-4 Gian Chand does not remember anything about the incident. On the evidence of PW-7 Roop Ram, the Court holds that it is hearsay evidence because he is not the witness of incident at all. 3. On the totality of the evidence, the Court holds that, prosecution witnesses having spoken against its case, the statements of the witnesses having not been recorded by the police and no `danda’ (stick) being recovered, no offence was made out. 4. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the petition. If the witnesses have spoken against the prosecution, it is not the right of the State to continue with the further proceedings. This petition is dismissed. August 5, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.