IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.A.No.452 of 2000 Reserved on 7.1.2008 Date of decision 10.1.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Puran Chand 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 and Mrs. Meenakshi Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the respondents: Mr.R.K.Gautam, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma,J. The respondents were prosecuted in a Criminal Case No.107-I1/94 under Sections 147, 148, 325, 447, 323, 325 and 149 of the I.P.C. in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (1), Kangra and were acquitted on 29.12.1999. The State has filed the present appeal against the acquittal of the respondents. The brief facts which can be gathered from the judgment of the trial court are that on the intervening night of 18/19.10.1992 when Govind Ram along with his other two family members was keeping watch on the crop accused attacked them resulting in injuries to them. Complainant’s son Bhagirath was also injured in the attack. The prosecution had examined as many as eight witnesses to establish the case against the accused. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial court acquitted the respondents on 29.12.1999 hence the present appeal. 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Mr.M.A.Khan, learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused. He then contended that the trial court has not correctly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution which has led to grave miscarriage of justice. Mr. R.K. Gautam, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had supported the judgment of the trial court dated 29.12.1999. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. It is evident from the contents of Ex.DA that the accused Puran Chan was put into possession on a part of the land on 10.12.1990. He was put into possession of the land pursuant to the orders of the Financial Commissioner. PW-3 Govind Ram could not disclose how many fields were in the suit land and where the incident took place nor could he explain how much crop was cut and removed by the accused. PW-4 Bhagi Rath has stated that he was attacked with sharp edged weapon due to which his eye was damaged. The police had not recovered and taken into possession any sharp edged weapon except one danda which was recovered vide a recovery memo Ex.PW-6/A. Smt. Nirmala Devi (PW-6) arrived at the spot when the incident had already taken place. She had stated that the Pradhan as well as 40/50 persons had already reached on the spot. None of the witnesses had stated that they have seen any body removing the crop from the spot. It has come in the evidence that the house of the complainant was at a far of place from the spot where the incident had taken place. It is highly improbable that the noise could be heard by the witnesses from a considerable distance as stated by them. The trial court after adopting correct process of reasoning has acquitted the respondents. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondents. 3 The judgment passed by the trial court calls for no interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. January 10 ,2008(g) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J.