IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.17 of 2004 Date of decision : December 6, 2010 Dulmbi and another …Petitioners. Versus Nand Lal and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.4. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Present Revision Pension is directed against the judgment dated 14th October, 2010 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, whereby respondents No.1 to 3 (Nand Lal, Kesari Devi and Surjit Singh), who were tried for offences, under Sections 325, 323, 427, 504 and 506, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 3. A report was lodged with the police by PW-1 Reeta Devi that when she and her mother-in-law PW-2 Dulmbi were mowing grass from their land, situated on the upper side of their house, all the three respondents Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… appeared and started pelting stones at them, as a result of which, they sustained injuries, including fracture of one of the feet of Dulmbi. Slates of the roof of the house of the injured, were also damaged. Both the injured ladies were medically examined. Fracture of right foot of PW-2 Dulmbi was found, in the course of medical examination. Some other injuries were also noticed on her person, including swelling of one of the thighs. PW-1 Reeta Devi was also found having some injuries. Medical examination of both the injured was conducted by PW-10 Dr. S. Chauhan. 4. Prosecution, besides examining the two injured and the doctor, who conducted their medical examination, examined three other witnesses, who claimed to have witnessed the incident and rescued the injured ladies from the respondents. 5. Trial Court has acquitted the respondents, holding that the three alleged eye-witnesses have made contradictory statements and their presence on the spot, at the time of the occurrence, is doubtful. Trial Court has not assigned any reason for disbelieving the testimony of the injured, namely PW-1 Reeta Devi and PW-2 Dulmbi, as corroborated by the earliest version and the medical evidence. Even if it be assumed that the alleged eye- witnesses, other than the injured, were not there on the spot or that they had been procured, that by itself could not have been a ground for ignoring testimony of the injured, particularly when it is corroborated by the earliest version …3… and the medical evidence of PW-10 Dr. S Chauhan and the documents, including medical reports and X-ray report. 6. Learned counsel representing respondents No.1 to 3 submits that there had been a storm on the fateful day and slates of the roof of the house of the injured got damaged. Pieces of the slates hit them. No such suggestion was thrown to the injured in the course of their cross- examination. 7. In view of the abovestated position, the present revision petition is allowed, impugned judgment of acquittal of respondents No.1 to 3 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, with a direction to decide the same afresh, after re-hearing the parties and re-appraising the entire evidence on record. 8. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur on 22nd December, 2010. Petition stands disposed of. December 6, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J