IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.A. No.201/2001 Reserved on.4.1.2008 Decided on. 10.1.2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Mohan Lal and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the appellant : Mr. M.A. Khan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents Mr. M.L. Brakta, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. The respondents were prosecuted in criminal case No. 268/2 of 1999/98 for offences punishable under sections 325, 323 read with section of the Indian Penal Code in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (4), Shimla and were acquitted on 25.9.2000. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 25.9.2000. The facts which can be gathered from the judgment of the trial court are that on 19.6.1998, complainant along with Sham Lal, Lekh Raj, Prem Parkash and Viza Ram were coming after attending the marriage and when they were on the way near the house of the accused, Devi Saran, Sant Ram and Mohan Lal came out of the house along with Dandas and started beating the complainant and his companions. Consequently the FIR was registered and after 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 completion of the investigation, the challan was put in the court against the respondents-accused persons. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses to prove the case. The respondents were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused were acquitted on 25.9.2000. The learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondents- accused. Mr. M.L. Brakta, Advocate appearing for the respondents- accused had supported the judgment dated 25.9.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. It has come in the evidence that the respondents-accused have also filed complaint against the complainant for offences under sections 325, 147, 149 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Mohan Lal accused had received grievous injuries. The prosecution has not explained the injuries received by Mohan Lal as per MLC ExDW-1/A. Complainant has admitted that he remained arrested in the case registered at the instance of the accused against him and other witnesses. He had also admitted that there were 20-25 houses near the house of accused. PW-2 Sham Lal has stated in his statement that weapons of offences i.e. dandas were handed over to the police by Gian Chand, Prem Parkash and Vija Ram. PW-3 was not an eye witness. His evidence is hearsay and cannot be relied upon. PW-4 is Kamla Devi who is Pradhan of village and has only stated that Gian Chand has given dandas to the police and Sham Lal was also present at that time. PW-5 Head Constable Dharam Dass has stated that in FIR No. 348/98 injury 3 No.3 of Mohan Lal was grievous. Similarly, PW-8 Parveen Singh has admitted that on 5.7.1998 four X-ray reports were received and one of the X-rays belongs to the accused Mohan Lal, in which injury No.3 was shown as grievous. PW-9 ASI Raj Kumar, Investigating Officer of the case has stated that the accused had lodged the complaint against the complainant and witnesses under sections 325, 147, 149 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. PW-2 has stated that Gian Chand (PW-1) had handed over the dandas to the police from inside the room. PW-3 has testified that the dandas were given by Gian Chand, Sham Lal and other witnesses to the police whereas Kamla Devi has stated that weapons of offence were given by Gian Chand to the police in the presence of Sham Lal. As per the version of the prosecution weapons of offence i.e. dandas were left by the accused persons on the spot. This is not probable as the accused normally carries the weapons of offence and intends to destroy the evidence. It has further come in the statement of the witnesses that clothes of the complainant were stained with blood but the same were not taken into possession by the police. It is evident from the close scrutiny of the statements of the witnesses that they are related to each other and despite the fact that there were 20-25 houses near the spot, no independent witness from the locality has been examined, which casts further doubt on the prosecution story. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the observations made hereinabove, this Court will not interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Shimla dated 20.9.2000 acquitting the respondents. 4 The result of the above discussion is that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. January 10, 2008. ( Rajiv Sharma), Judge *Awasthi*