Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. 384 of 2003. Dated of Decision: September 7, 2010. State of Himachal Pradesh. …… Appellant. Versus Amit Kumar @ Chhota and others. ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant : Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (oral) : The respondents were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 324 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The State felt aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, as such filed the instant appeal. 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 3. PW1 Praveen Kumar complainant made a complaint to the police that on 5.7.2002 at about 11.30 p.m. he was carrying a fan to the house of his friend. While crossing the house of the respondents, he was abused - 2 - and they called the bad names to him and challenged if he wanted to fight with them, he should come to the road, but when examined in the court, the complainant did not support the prosecution case. Thus, he was cross- examined by the learned Public Prosecutor and during cross-examination he admitted that he had reported the matter to the police. He also stated that he was fisticuffed by the respondents and was rescued by his father PW2 Paras Ram and his friend Rajnish Kumar (PW3). He further admitted that the litigation was going on between his family and that of the accused and they were not in visiting and talking terms for the last about 3-4 years. He also stated that at the time of incident, about 20 persons had assembled on the spot. He further stated that due to beatings, he fell down. He was picked up by his father and a report was lodged against the respondents. 4. PW2 Paras Ram, his father stated that he was attracted by the cries of his son. When he reached the spot, he alongwith Ashok and Rajnish Kumar rescued the complainant from the clutches of the respondents. Though, he admitted in cross-examination that their relations were not cordial with each other for the last so many years, but denied having any landed dispute with the respondents. PW3 Jagdish Kumar (Rajnish Kumar) - 3 - stated that he was present at his home and he came to know from the mother of the complainant that some people were beating her son. He went to the spot and noticed Amit, Deepu, Rinku and other accused persons. They had fisticuffed the complainant. He was rescued. He admitted in cross-examination that both the families were earlier locked in the litigation and they were not in any visiting or talking terms with each other. He admitted that the complainant has been his friend. 5. The statements, which were given by the complainant and his aforesaid witnesses in the Court are their improved versions to his initial complaint Ex.PW1/A, lodged to the police. There is no mention about calling bad names by the respondents to him and also that he was carrying a fan to the house of his friend. Both the versions i.e. one mentioned in the complaint/ FIR and another as stated by him in the Court are in sharp contradiction. Further it has come in evidence that about 15-20 persons have gathered at the time of alleged incident, but the prosecution only chose to examine the father of the complainant and his friend PW3 aforesaid. Their versions, on close scrutiny appear to be tainted one in so far as the incident is concerned. - 4 - 6. Against the aforesaid background that both the parties are locked in litigation and not in visiting terms with each other, the story initially projected by the complainant stood tarnished by giving a different version by the complainant causing material contradiction, therefore, on the scrutiny of the evidence, I find that the respondents were rightly given the benefit of doubt, which is borne out from the evidence on record. The acquittal of the respondents thus requires no interference, as such, appeal is dismissed. 7. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds, entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. September 7, 2010 (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.