IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 342 of 2001. Decided on: 06.08.2008. State of Himachal Pradesh. … … Appellant. Versus Kashmir Singh and Another. … … Accused/Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the Accused/Respondents: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The accused/respondents were prosecuted in criminal Case No.111-II of 1998 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarkaghat, District Mandi under Sections 325 and 506 red with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were acquitted by the learned trial Court on 29.9.2000. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.9.2000. The brief facts gathered from the judgment of the learned trial Court necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that on 2.7.1997 at about 6.30 p.m. the complainant, Himat Ram was grazing his cattle in Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - his field. His wife was also working in the field. The accused No.1 tress- passed in the field and gave stone blow o the head of the complainant. The accused No.2 also threatened the complainant with sickle. The F.I.R. was registered. The matter was investigated and on completion of the investigation, the challan was put up. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as many as eight witnesses. The accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused were acquitted by the trial Court on 29.9.2000. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal, dated 29.9.2000. The learned Additional Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution had proved its case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court dated 29.9.2000 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. On the other hand, Shri Ajay Chandel has supported the judgment dated 29.9.2000 passed by the learned trial Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The incident is dated 2nd July, 1997 at 6.30 p.m. The complainant/injured was medically examined at 12.55 p.m. on 3.7.1997. It is clear from the M.L.C. Ex.PW-6/A that the probable duration of the injuries was 10 to 12 hours. In the F.I.R., the complainant has not mentioned that his index finger was twisted by the accused. He has made improvement in his statement. PW-7, Shri Ram Sarup, A.S.I., Investigating Officer of the case has deposed that the injured Himat Ram has told him that he suffered injury in his finger prior to the alleged - 3 - incident. The person who had taken the X-ray was not examined by the prosecution. The stone was neither recovered nor taken into possession by the police. The learned trial Court after correctly appreciating the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, has rightly acquitted the accused. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents-accused are discharged. August 6, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma), (sck) Judge.