IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.466 of 2001 Date of decision : June 20, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Gulam Navi and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of trial Magistrate, whereby respondents, four in number, who were tried for offences, punishable under Sections 325 and 506, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. A report was lodged with the police on 20th August, 1997, by PW-1 Kartar Singh, that on the same day around 5.30 p.m. when he was returning from his fields, the respondents accosted him and started hurling abuses and then respondent Liaqat Ali snatched the darat, which he was carrying and dealt a blow on his head, while respondent Gulam Navi held him and the other two respondents pulled his beard and collar of his shirt. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. PW-1 Kartar Singh was got medically examined by the police. A lacerated wound was found on his head. Tenderness was found on the little finger of the right hand, which, on X-ray examination, indicated a linear fracture. Respondents pleaded that they had been falsely implicated, because of old enmity between the parties and that in fact PW-1 Kartar Singh had sustained injuries while one of his oxen went out of control and hit him with its horns. 4. I have gone through the record and heard the learned Additional Advocate General. 5. Prosecution did not examine the doctor, who conducted the medico legal examination of PW-1 Kartar Singh. PW-1 Kartar Singh’s testimony does not inspire confidence, because he says that he was dealt a blow on his head with a darat, but the injury, which was found on the head, per medico legal certificate Ex. PW-8/A, was not an incised wound but a lacerated wound. It has come in the evidence that the parties had been litigating with each other about some boundary dispute and proceedings, under Section 107/150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had also been going on. 6. In view of the abovestated position, I do not think this to be a fit case for interference with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of. June 20, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J