IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 407 of 1998 Date of decision: 17.5.2010 State of H.P. Appellant. Versus Binda and others Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Surender Verma vice Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J, (oral) 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 25.09.1997 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2), Kangra at Dharmshala, in Sessions Case No.21-N/VII-1993 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 307, 332, 333 IPC read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on the night intervening 12/13th April, 1996 a police party from 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Police Station, Indora was on patrolling duty near village Chhani where secret information was received that truck bearing registration No. PBO-1895 was carrying illicit liquor through the area. Thereafter, a Naka was laid. At about 1.45 a.m a truck came from Tanda side. There were six persons in the said truck. The police party signaled the truck to stop and thereafter, one of the persons, namely, Som Lal asked the driver of the truck to fire a gun shot at the police party. Then two shots were fired from the gun as a result of which two constables, Manohar Lal and Nirmal Singh, sustained injuries. The truck fled towards Tanda side. Thereafter, F.I.R was registered with the Police Station Indora. The injured constables were sent for medical examination. 3. It would be pertinent to mention that the present three accused were declared proclaimed offenders and trial was commenced against accused Som Lal, Mangat Ram and Kailu. These three accused were acquitted by the Sessions Court vide judgement dated 21.1.1988 and there is no dispute that this acquittal was never over turned. The remaining three accused were apprehended later and tried. It would be pertinent to mention that 3 one of the injured constables, namely, Nirmal Singh expired in the meantime. The only witness to the incident, therefore, was Manohar Lal, the other injured and PW-2, Bansi Lal, who were the members of the patrolling party. The injured PW-1 Manohar Lal has only stated that 5-6 persons were travelling in the truck and he did not identify any of persons in the truck. PW- 2, Bansi Lal, ASI also stated that he does not know who was travelling in the truck. He has only identified Somi @ Som Lal who already stands acquitted in the earlier trial. 4. Therefore, there is not an iota of evidence to link the accused with the commission of the aforesaid offences. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge 17th May, 2010. ( Rajiv Sharma) ™ Judge.