IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 128/2001. Reserved on :09.01.2008. Decided on: 11.01.2008. State of H.P. … … Appellant. Versus Shamsher Khan & Another. … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The respondents were prosecuted in Criminal Case No.20/2 of 1997 under Sections 452 and 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. and were acquitted on 16.9.2000. The State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 16.9.2000. The brief facts which can be culled out from the judgment of the trial Court, necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that on 17.12.1996 at about 7.30 p.m. when complainant Vinod Kumar was present in his house, the accused persons after having made preparation to intimidate and annoy the complainant committed criminal trespass to Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - his house and gave him severe beatings by fist and kick blows. The wife of the complainant when intervened to save the complainant was also manhandled and assaulted. Consequently, F.I.R. (Ex.P-A) was registered at police station, Nahan and the matter was investigated. After completion of investigation, the challan was put up. The prosecution had examined as many as 9 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. The respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court acquitted the respondents on 16.9.2000, hence, this appeal. The learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused- respondents and the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside. Mr. Bimal Gupta had supported the judgment of the trial Court dated 16.9.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The complainant Vinod Kumar (PW-1) has admitted that he had given one shop to accused Shamsher Khan in the month of April, 1994. He has also admitted that 5-6 criminal cases had been instituted by him against the accused persons. He could not disclose the names of the persons who according to him had accompanied the accused on 17.12.1996. He has also admitted that PW-3 Brij Mohan is his close relation. M.L.C. Ex.PW-8/A discloses that the complainant had received only simple injuries, but he has stated that he became unconscious due to the beatings given by the accused persons. PW-3, Brij Mohan is brother-in-law of the complainant, Vinod Kumar. He has also admitted that there is a dispute between the parties with regard to the shop. PW-4, Kusum Kashyap is the wife of complainant, Vinod Kumar. She has also admitted that PW-3 is her brother-in-law (Behnoi). She has not stated that her son was an eye - 3 - witness to the incident dated 17.12.1996. PW-6 is the son of complainant, Vinod Kumar. He has admitted in his cross-examination that no body came to rescue his parents from neighbourhood despite the hue and cry raised by him at the time of the incident. PW-9, Sub Inspector, Rohit Sharma has admitted in his cross- examination that during the course of investigation he came across that the complainant party wanted the eviction of the accused persons from the shop which is in possession of the wife of accused Shamsher Khan. He had also admitted that adjacent to the neighbourhood of the complainant, there is a locality. It has come in the statement of the Investigating Officer that the house of PW-3, Brij Mohan is situated at a distance of about 2 Kms. from the house of the complainant. It has also come in the evidence that there is a litigation going on between the parties for ejectment and recovery of rent. Thus, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the complaint has been lodged against the accused to get the premises vacated from them. There are major contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, who are closely related. The prosecution has not examined any independent witness, though the occurrence has taken place in a locality. From the above discussion it can safely be concluded that the trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused-respondents stand discharged. January 11, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma) (sck). Judge