IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.A.No.292 of 2001 Reserved on 28.2.2008 Date of decision 7.3.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Parveen Kumar alias Mahinda and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr.Anil Kumar Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Bipin C.Negi, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma,J. The respondents were prosecuted under Sections 452, 427, 323, 506/34 IPC in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur District Kangra in a criminal case No.97-II/96 and were acquitted on 1.12.2000. Hence this appeal by the State against the judgment dated 1.12.2000. The brief facts gathered from the judgment of the trial court are that on 22.5.1995 at about 11.30 p.m. at Sanour, while Rikhi Ram (PW-1) was sitting in his house, accused came there. Praveen Kumar was having sickle and other accused came with dandas. Accused Parveen Kumar inflicted sickle blow on the bead of Rikhi Ram and other accused also gave beatings to him. He raised an alarm and his daughter saved him from the accused. The matter was reported to the police. FIR Ex.PW1/A was registered against the accused. The case was investigated and 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 challan was put up against the accused. The prosecution had examined as many as 9 witnesses. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The trial court acquitted the respondents on 1.12.2000, hence this appeal against their acquittal. The learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the judgment dated 1.12.2000 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He also argued that the prosecution had led cogent evidence and on that basis the respondents could not be acquitted. Mr.Bipin C. Negi, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents had supported the judgment dated 1.12.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of the case carefully. There are material contradictions in the statements made by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. PW-1 Rikhi Ram had stated that accused Praveen Kumar visited his house and inflicted sickle blow on his head. He raised the alarm which attracted the attention of his daughters who tried to save him and they were also beaten up by the accused. However, PW-2 Kamlesh Kumari has stated that Parveen Kumar had inflicted sickle blow on her father in her presence. Similarly, PW-3 Anita Devi had stated that Parveen Kumar had inflicted sickle blow on the head of her father Rikhi Ram. PW-1 had stated that the daughters came to the spot when he raised alarm after being hit by the sickle by the accused. However, daughters of Rikhi Ram have categorically stated that the sickle blow was inflicted upon their father in their presence. PW-7 Karam Singh has not supported the prosecution case since he did not know the name of the accused, though he had stated that he could identify the accused by their faces. He had also not stated that Parveen Kumar had inflicted the sickle blow on Rikhi Ram. It has also come on the record that Parveen Kumar had also filed a private complaint against the complainant Rikhi Ram and his family members. Parveen Kumar was also medically examined by Dr. B. M. Gupta vide MLC Ex.DW-1/A. The doctor had found five injuries on 3 the person of Parveen Kumar. The prosecution has not at all explained the injuries received by Parveen Kumar on his person. Since PW-4 Tarsem Singh and PW-5 Baldev Singh have been declared hostile the recovery of sickle and danda also become doubtful. Thus the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. Hence they have been rightly acquitted by the trial court. There is no merit in the appeal and the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate being well reasoned calls for no interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged March 7, 2008(g) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J.