IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 215 of 2001. Reserved on: 07.01.2008. Decided on: 10.01.2008. State of Himachal Pradesh. … … Appellant. Versus Johri Ram & Others. … … Accused/Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant-State: Mr. M.A. Khan and Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the Accused/Respondents: Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The respondents were prosecuted under Sections 342/323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una in Criminal case No.28-2 of 1996 and were acquitted on 15.9.2000. The State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 15.9.2000 rendered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una. The brief facts, as gathered from the judgment of the trial Court are that on 9.1.1996 at about 6.20 p.m. complainant, Chet Ram lodged a report with the police at police station, Bangana stating therein that on 7.1.1996 at about 9 p.m. when he was returning to his house, the accused persons abused his family and gave beatings to him. The Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - F.I.R. bearing No.2 of 1996 was registered. The matter was investigated and on completion of the investigation, the challan was put up in the Court. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined as many as 8 witnesses. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court had acquitted the accused on 15.9.2000. The Deputy Advocate Generals had strenuously argued that the prosecution had proved the case against the accused. Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj had supported the judgment dated 15.9.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. It has been stated by Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondents that Shri Johri Ram, respondent No.1 had died during the pendency of the appeal and the appeal against him stands abated. The incident is dated 7.1.1996 at about 9 p.m. However, the F.I.R. was lodged on 9.1.1996 at about 6.20 p.m. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been explained at all by the prosecution. PW-1, Chet Ram had stated that he was also tied with the pole with the help of rope by the accused persons. He has further stated that Paras Ram, PW-3 and Gurdas Ram arrived on the spot, but the accused did not free him. He had also stated that Parkash Chand, Up-Pradhan arrived on the spot and rescued him from the accused persons. Parkash Chand, PW-2 has stated that he was called by accused Kishan Chand on the spot at on 7.1.1996 at about 1 a.m. (night). Paras Ram, PW-3 has stated that on hearing the noise, he had arrived the spot and found that the complainant tied by the accused with the rope. PW-7, Prem Dass has stated that he had gone to the spot and found the complainant tied by the accused with the help of rope. In his cross-examination, he - 3 - has stated that the complainant was given beatings by the accused persons for about 2-3 hours. The statement of PW-2 Parkash Chand cannot be believed for the simple reason that the accused Kishan Chand will not go to call him on the spot. Paras Ram, PW-3 has stated that Gurdas Ram had gone to call Pradhan, Parkash Chand on the spot. There is thus variance in the statements of PW-2 as well as PW-3. PW-7’s statement is over exaggerated since he has stated that the accused had given beatings to the complainant for 2-3 hours. However, in the M.L.C., it has come that the complainant, Chet Ram had received only minor injuries. There are material contradictions in the statements made by the PWs. as noted above and there was considerable delay in lodging the F.I.R. by the complainant, which has not at all been explained. The injuries received by the complainant are two simple injuries, but the version of PW-7 is that the accused gave beatings to the complainant for about 2-3 hours. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused and the trial Court has correctly appreciated of the evidence and rightly acquitted the respondents-accused. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused-respondents stand discharged. January 10, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma), (sck) Judge.