Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No.1118 of 2010. Dated of Decision: November 16, 2010. State of H.P. ……. Petitioner. Versus Avtar Singh and another. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondents : None. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The respondents were acquitted by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.30-II of 2009 on 27.7.2010, for the offences punishable under Sections 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the State has sought leave to appeal. 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 3. In short the prosecution story is that on 4.1.2008 at about 8.15 a.m., PW1 complainant Balwinder Singh alongwith his wife PW2 Sneh Lata were lopping the branches of a tree in their village. 2 The respondents objected to it, claiming the ownership of the said tree and asked them the reason for lopping the branches of the tree. In turn, the complainant told that the demarcation of the land was got conducted by him and the tree in question fell in his possession. On this, the respondents got enraged and uprooted the barbed wire. Complainant tried to stop him. Respondent Avtar Singh snatched the ‘darat’ from him. It is alleged that said Avtar Singh dealt a blow of ‘darat’ to the complainant and respondent Indra Devi gave beatings to his wife Sneh Lata. The complainant party raised alarm. PW3 Suman Devi, Ward Panch and Dilbag Singh got attracted, reached the spot and saved them from the clutches of the respondents. 4. Admittedly with respect to the same incident, respondents had also lodged a complainant to the police alleging beatings by the complainant party to them. It is also evident from the evidence on record that for the last about 15 years, both the parties were not in speaking terms with each other. Further, neither the complainant produced the demarcation report under which he 3 was claiming the ownership of tree in question nor the police obtained demarcation of the land in question to find out the existence of the tree into the land of the complainant party. 5. PW3 Suman Devi, Ward Panch did not support the case of the prosecution. She turned hostile. When cross-examined, she testified that when she reached the spot, both the parties were scuffling with each other, except this, she did not see anything else. Another witness Dilbag Singh was not examined. What happened to the complaint filed by the respondents is not known. 6. In view of the above stated position, the statement of PW1 Complainant Balwinder Singh and his wife PW2 Sneh Lata cannot be blindly relied upon, in view of the report of the respondents Ex.DX, which creates a doubt as to the manner of occurrence as stated by him. As such, leave to appeal is not granted. Hence the petition is dismissed. November 16, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.