IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.A.No.179 of 2001 Reserved on 4.1.2008 Date of decision 10.1.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Nek Ram and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr.M.A.Khan & Ms.Meenakshi Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the respondents: None. Rajiv Sharma, J. The respondents were prosecuted in a Criminal Case No. 275/2 of 99/1998 under Sections 341, 323, 147, 149, 506 and 325 of the I.P.C. in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.5, Shimla and were acquitted on 30.11.2000. The brief facts which can be culled out from the judgment of the trial court are that at about 5.30 p.m. on 3.12.1997 the complainant was going to his village Katli. He was given beatings by the respondents. The matter was reported to the police and consequently FIR was registered. The Investigating Officer had prepared the spot map and also recorded statements of the witnesses. In order to prove its case the prosecution had examined as many as nine witnesses in all. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court acquitted the respondents vide judgment dated 30.11.2000. The State has filed the present appeal against the acquittal of the respondents. 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? No 2 The learned Deputy 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. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General and have also gone through the record carefully. The prosecution had not examined the I.O. who had investigated the case and prepared the spot map and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. The other material witness who according to the complainant has saved him is Madan Singh. He was also not cited as a witness by the prosecution. It was necessary for the prosecution to cite Madan Singh as a witness since according to the complainant in the FIR he was rescued by said Madan Singh and Gulab Singh. PW-4 Prem Lal could not state who had handed over danda to the police. PW-6 Ashok Kumar, PW-9 Lalit and PW-2 Devki have turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution case. The complainant had stated that wife of Sham Lal came to the spot. This statement of PW-1 is inconsistent with the facts reported to the police at the time of registration of the F.I.R. It is no where mentioned in the FIR that wife of Sham Lal came to the spot and rescued him from the accused. The complainant had made improvements in his statement. Since prosecution has neither examined the I.O. nor material witness Madan Singh and there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses the accused have been rightly acquitted by the trial court. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. January 10, 2008 (g) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J