IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.A. No.:249/2001 Decided on: 23.7.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. Versus Geeta Devi and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the appellant. : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The respondents were prosecuted in criminal case No. 86/2 of 1993 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan under sections 323,325,506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were acquitted on 31.8.2000. The State has filed the present appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.8.2000. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the accused persons on 9.6.1992 at about 9.30 A.M. at place Rundhangoro under the Police Station, Dharampur, formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly gave beatings to Karam Dev and Ramesh Chand and also entered the field of Karam Dev. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 When Karam Dev raised hue and cry, Ramesh Chand and complainant Vimla Devi reached the spot and tried to rescue the injured from the clutches of the accused persons. On the basis of the statement of Vimla Devi, FIR No. 57/92 was registered. The matter was investigated and the challan was put up in the Court. The accused persons were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused persons were acquitted on 31.8.2000. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General has argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused persons and the judgment dated 31.8.2000 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate has supported the judgment dated 31.8.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. It has come in the statement of PW-3 Karam Dev and PW-4 Ramesh Kumar that one Sarswati and Lala Rajinder were present on the spot. However, the names of both these witnesses i.e. Sarswati and Lala Rajinder do not find mention in the list of prosecution. The prosecution has not explained this lapse. The Investigating Officer could not be examined in this case since he has died. It has also come in the evidence that Geeta Devi accused is mother of PW-2 Vimla Devi. It appears from the record that there was dispute with respect to one will between the parties. The injured in this case was medically examined by PW-1 Dr. Rajesh Kashyap and PW-9 Dr. C.L. Sharma but no suggestion was given to these witnesses regarding the weapon of offence i.e. Darat. The weapon of offence was not even put to these witnesses. It has been admitted by PW-2 in her cross-examination that in village Rundhangoro, 3 there are about 15 residential houses. The incident has taken place at about 9.30 A.M. on 9.6.1992, the same was bound to be witnessed by the villagers. The prosecution has not examined any independent witness in this case. PW-5 Amar Chand, PW-6 Mohan Lal, PW-10 Harmesh Kumar and PW-11 Mahinder Sharma have not corroborated the statements of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. In fact, these witnesses have turned hostile. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons. The trial court on the basis of the correct appreciation of the evidence has rightly acquitted the respondents. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged July 23, 2008 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*