IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 365 of 2001 Date of decision: 25.04.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh ... Appellant Versus Bhim Bahadur & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondents: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat, dated 9.2.2001, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 325 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a report was lodged with the police by complainant Sandeep Kumar that on 7.5.1999, at about 1.20PM, he as a student of Class+2 in Senior Secondary School, Kandaghat, was sitting near the laboratory during recess period. The accused persons who were also students came there and gave him legs 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 and fists blows and one of his front tooth was broken in that process. He reported the matter to the Principal, but when no action was taken on the report on the 5th day i.e. 11.5.1999, he lodged a report with the police who registered a case and conducted investigation. After completion of investigation, the challan was filed leading to the trial of the respondents by the learned trial Court resulting in their acquittal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It is clear from a perusal of the report that both the parties complainant and the respondents are allegedly students in the Senior Secondary School, Kandaghat and the occurrence in question is alleged to have taken place during the recess period at about 1.20PM. According to the statement of PW-6 Pankaj Kumar and an eye witness, 20-25 students were present at the spot when the occurrence took place. However, out of those 20-25 students, the prosecution has examined two eye witnesses/students of the school apart from the complainant himself. The first witness is complainant himself as PW-2, who stated that he was present near the laboratory and the accused persons came there, caught hold of him and gave him legs and fists blows and one of his tooth was broken. He stated that he lodged a complaint with the Principal, but when no action was taken he lodged a repot with the police on 11.5.1999 and the occurrence had taken place on 7.5.1999. He 3 did not give any explanation for not lodging of report immediately. The said broken tooth was not produced by him before Medical Officer or before the police, which would have corroborated the version of the complainant to some extent. The other witness, namely, PW-3 Rajesh Thakur, another student of the school who has clearly stated in his cross- examination that the complainant/injured had suffered injuries by fall. The second eye witness in the case is PW-6 Pankaj Kumar also a student of the school, who simply stated that he was taking meal and the accused persons quarreled with the complainant who suffered injuries and blood oozed out of the mouth of the complainant. He did not state that in his presence injuries were caused by the accused persons with legs and fists blows as stated by the complainant. Therefore, he does not corroborate the statement of the complainant on all material particulars. Apart from this, the complainant Sandeep Kumar as PW-2 has clearly admitted that Bhim Bahadur who is also accused/respondent No.1 was not present in the school at that time, which clearly shows that he has been implicated falsely. Once attempts ought to have been made falsely to implicate another person who was not present, statement made by the complainant cannot be relied upon. From the above discussion, it is clear that in view of the evidence produced by the prosecution, findings of the learned trial Court holding that the guilt of the respondents was not established beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 4 In view of the above, it follows that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ) April 25, 2008 Judge (BSS) 5