IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 579 of 2002 Date of decision: 17.6.2009 State of Himachal Pradesh ..Appellant Versus Dimple Kumar and others ..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. B. Misra, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr. M.S.Guleria, Advocate R. B.Misra J. (Oral) The present appeal has arisen from the judgment dated 30.4.2002, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, District Kangra, in Criminal Case No. 226-II/1997, under Sections 323, 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that two groups of persons, having blood relations, had quarreled for ownership and use of cow-shed and complainant appears to have become aggressive and both the accused had inflicted injuries on the body of the complainant. On the complaint of Kishori Lal, a case in reference to offence under Sections 323, 325/34 IPC was made. Prosecution had examined as many as eight witnesses and defence side has simply 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 denied the offence in the manner of occurrence of the case. The trial court has framed the following issues:- 1) Whether the accused persons in furtherance of common intention had voluntarily caused hurt on the persons of Bimla Devi and Sanjay Kumar and grievous hurt on the person of Kishori Lal on the material date ? 2) Final order. 3. The learned trial court answered issue No.1 in the negative. After analyzing all the prosecution witnesses and material on record has given benefit of doubt by indicating that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and has acknowledged that the prosecution witnesses were mainly related to the complainant side and injuries were very ordinary in nature. From the testimony of prosecution witnesses, it could have safely been arrived that the complainant was aggressive and was involved in quarrel, wherein both, complainant side and the accused side, had sustained injuries. Contradictions and inconsistencies have been noticed and on the basis of the material on record and prosecution evidence, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused giving benefit of doubt. As such the judgment dated 30.4.2002, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, District Kangra, requires no interference. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged forthwith. June 17, 2009(K) ( R. B. Misra ), J.