IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 161 of 2007. Date of decision: November 7, 2009 Giany Har Amar Singh Sewak ….. Petitioner. Vs. Smt. Veena Sharma & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. P.C.Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. I.D. Bali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Virender Bali, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. R.P.Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.4. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). Heard learned counsel for the parties. This revision has been directed against judgement dated 25.7.2006 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan in Criminal Case No. 90/2 of 1999. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was complainant before the trial court and on the basis of his rapat No. 25 Ex. PW 1/A, the case was registered and respondents were prosecuted, under Sections 325, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, but were ultimately acquitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan. 2. In rapat No. 25 Ex. PW 1/A, it has been stated that on 2.1.1999 at about 4.00 p.m. the complainant was in his room, Smt. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… Veena Sharma alongwith her sons Atul Sharma and Rahul Sharma came there and asked him to vacate the room and they started quarreling with him. Atul Sharma and Rahul Sharma took the complainant outside the room and laid him on the lintel, as a result of which he sustained injuries on his right, left hands as well as right leg. He cried and after some time police reached the spot. The complainant in his statement as PW 1 has stated that on 23.12.1998 the lock of his room was broken, which was witnessed by Bimla, he loged report on 24.12.1998. On 2.1.1999, he was at Kandaghat and when returned he saw respondent No. 1 breaking the lock of his room and her two sons and one Gorkha were also there, who were cutting the lock. He objected, then that Gorkha attacked the complainant with a blade, as a result of which complainant sustained injuries on his right hand and fingers. The complainant in rapat Ex. PW 1/A has given different story and as a witness in the court he has changed his version completely. 3. It is not the case of the petitioner that the room in question is located at an isolated place. The prosecution has not examined any eye witness to corroborate the case of PW 1. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly appreciated the material on record. There is no merit in the revision petition, which is dismissed. November 7, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.