Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No.1161 of 2008. Dated of Decision: November 6, 2008. State of H.P. ……. Petitioner. Versus Yashpal and others. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the Respondents: None. Surinder Singh, J (oral): Heard and gone through the record. In brief, the prosecution story has been that the complainant Mangat Ram was lopping the Bihul tree on 14.3.2007 in the morning, which was objected to by Smt. Gian Devi, as she claimed the said tree falling in her own land. It gave a cause for picking up an altercation. The complainant told her that he had applied for the demarcation. When the complainant got down from the said tree, the respondents are alleged to have stopped him and gave beatings. PW2 Sanjana Devi, his daughter got attracted and came to the spot to rescue him. It is alleged that the accused persons had inflicted the darat blow on the person of the complainant Mangat Ram and ran away. He was medically examined, but no sharp edged injury was found on his person. The lacerated wound found on his person was opined to be with a blunt-edged weapon, having irregular margin. It 2 is in the evidence that the darat was in the hands of the complainant, who was lopping the tree and there is no whisper that it was in the hands of any of the respondents, the prosecution evidence is silent as to how it came in hands of the accused, whereas, the recovery of darat is from Pushpa Thakur. It is not known how it came in her possession. Further, PW2 Sanjana Devi stated in her cross-examination that there was a boundary dispute where the tree was standing. During the investigation of this case, the police also did not conduct any demarcation in order to show as to whom the Bihul tree belonged. The injury on the person of the complainant with the darat has not been substantiated. Even PW4 Rikhi Ram has no where stated that the injury to the complainant or PW2 Sanjana Devi was also caused by the accused persons. In the light of the above discussion, the prosecution story lacks the probity, thus the respondents were rightly acquitted by the learned trial court, hence, the leave to appeal is refused. Application stands disposed of. November 6, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.