IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.759 of 2002. Decided on: July 15, 2009. State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Khushhal Singh & Ors. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr P.K.Sharma, Addl.A.G. For the respondents: Mr.Praveen Chandel & Mr.Ban Bhushan Singh, vice Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. R.B.Misra, Judge (Oral): Heard Mr.P.K.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant / State and Mr.Praveen Chandel, learned vice counsel for the respondents. 2. The present criminal appeal has arisen by virtue of granting leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in reference to the judgment dated 6.7.2002, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, in Criminal Case No.17- II/98 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 323, Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? …2… 506, 34 IPC whereby the alleged accused / respondents were acquitted. 3. In order to adjudicate the present criminal appeal, it is necessary to highlight the brief facts of the prosecution case. On 24.6.1997, at 12 noon, Patwari had come to demarcate the Shamlat land of the father-in-law of the complainant, situate besides land. When the complainant asked the Patwari not to demarcate the land, the alleged accused Khushhal Singh inflicted a blow with ‘Drat’ on the right arm and accused Kaur Chand inflicted ‘danda’ blows on her legs. The complainant and her daughter appear to have raised an alarm whereupon the accused persons fled away from the spot. It appears the complainant lodged the report at 1.30 PM and thereby F.I.R. No.105/97 was registered and the case was investigated by ASI Kanshi Ram and ASI Sureshta Thakur. After investigation, charge-sheet in reference to Sections 323/324/506/34 was filed. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses, whereas, the alleged accused persons had totally denied the prosecution case in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On the basis of material on record, the trial Court had framed the following three points for determination:- …3… i) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused Khushhal Chand and Kaur Chand had voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant on 24.6.1997 at 12 noon? ii) Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused persons had threatened the complainant to do away with her life? iii) Final order. The first and second points were answered in negative and in reference to third point, all alleged accused / respondents were acquitted of the charges, alleged against them. 5. I have gone through the record and contents of the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It may be seen that no independent witnesses were examined when the occurrence was said to have taken place at about 12 noon i.e. in day time when large number of passers by and the public had assembled there. The occurrence was said to have taken place at 12 noon, whereas, the police station is situated nearby and the F.I.R. was lodged at 1.30 PM. So much so, the daughter of the complainant Smt.Seema Devi is the sole ocular witness of the incident, has narrated a different version about the time of the incident as well as lodging of the F.I.R. and has also contradicted the manner of occurrence of the incident, as claimed by the prosecution. …4… No independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution and the F.I.R. was lodged at the belated stage without proper explanation and the discrepancies are appearing in the testimonies of complainant (PW-4) as well as Smt.Seema Devi (PW-2), as noticed by learned trial Court. Keeping in view the discrepancies, contradictions and improbabilities of the case, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the alleged accused / respondents and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. As such, I have no occasion to interfere in the conclusion and verdict arrived at by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra. 6. Resultantly, the appeal fails, being devoid of any merit, and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused / respondents are hereby discharged. July 15, 2009. ( R.B.Misra ) (soni) Judge