IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.A.No.108 of 2001 Reserved on 29.12.2007 Date of decision 2.1.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Ajay Negi and anr. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr.Virender Kumar Verma, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate, Rajiv Sharma,J. The respondents were prosecuted in a Criminal Case No. 139/2 of 2000 under Sections 379, 411 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (II), Shimla and have been acquitted on 21.11.2000. The facts in nutshell are that one Mehboob Ali Khan was owner of a motorcycle bearing registration No.HP-07-3218 and he had parked his motorcycle on 1.6.2000 at 11 a.m. at Oak land parking, Shimla. When he came back about 5.30 p.m. he found his motorcycle missing. Consequently FIR Ex. PW-7/A was registered with Police Station Sadar, Shimla. The matter was enquired and consequently the challan was put up. The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses to prove the case against the respondents. The respondents were examined under Section 313 cr.P.C. 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? No 2 Mr.Virender Kumar Verma, learned Additional Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondents. He further contended that the trial court had misinterpreted the evidence on record, resulting in miscarriage of justice. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had supported the judgment dated 21.11.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. PW-1 Lakshay Thakur had stated that he was at Bhatta Kufer in connection with repairs of his vehicle. He saw accused person driving motorcycle of the informant. In his cross-examination he has deposed that it happened between 6 to 6.30 p.m. and he remained on the spot up to 9 p.m. PW-6 Nizam Khan and PW-8 Mohamad Ayub Khan had deposed that they received the message from Lakshay Thakur between 4 to 5 p.m. and they reached the spot at about 4.20 p.m. PW-6 and PW-8 the father and brother of the informant have stated that they remained at the spot for 45-60 minutes, meaning thereby that they remained at the spot upto 5.20 p.m. There are material contradictions in the statements of PW-1, PW-6 and PW-8 with regard to the sequence of events. This casts doubt on the prosecution version. Since the very presence of the witness is doubtful on the spot the respondent No.1 has been rightly acquitted by the trial Court. As far as respondent No.2 is concerned, no evidence has come against him. The judgment of the trial court is well reasoned and is strictly in conformity with the evidence led by the prosecution. Consequently the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondents. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. January 2, 2008 (g) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J