IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.A.No.175 of 2001 Reserved on 4.1.2008 Date of decision 10.1.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Om Parkash and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr.M.A.Khan & Ms.Meenakshi Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the respondents: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate, Rajiv Sharma,J. The respondents were prosecuted in a Criminal Case No. 64-1/97 RBT No.62-II/97 under Sections 324, 323 and 34 of the I.P.C. in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.II, Amb District Una and were acquitted on 22.5.2000. The facts which can be gathered from the judgment of the trial court are that on 18.5.1997 at about 6.30 p.m. at a place Bhera accused persons in furtherance of common intention voluntarily caused hurt to complainant with danda and iron pipe. The matter was reported to the police and consequently FIR Ex.PW-8/G against the accused persons was registered. The matter was investigated. The challan was put up. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses in support of its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The respondents were acquitted by the trial court on 22.5.200. The State has filed the present appeal against the acquittal of the respondents. 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 The learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondents. He further contended that the trial court had mis-appreciated the evidence on record, resulting in miscarriage of justice. Mr. N.K.Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had supported the judgment dated 22.5.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. PW-1 is Inderjit Kaur complainant. She has stated in FIR that Om Parkash and Raj Kumar came on the spot and were having iron pipes in their hands and Mukhtiar Singh was holding stick in his hand and they have beaten her. In her statement she had stated that Om Parkash gave blow with iron pipe on her back and he laid her down on the earth and Mukhtiar Singh gave blow with stick on her arm, Raj Kumar gave blow with iron pipe on the side of the complainant and Om Parkash also gave below with iron pipe on her breast and blood started oozing out. There are thus material contradictions in the contents of the FIR and the statement made by PW-1 in the Court. She has definitely made improvements in her statement. She has stated that pipes were not handed over by her to the Police and the Police have recovered them from the house of Om Parkash However, memo Ex.PW-1/C clearly shows that the pipes were handed over to the police by the complainant Inderjit Kaur herself. She has admitted in her cross-examination that criminal case is pending against her pertaining to same incident dated 18.5.1997. PW-2 Jalam Singh had admitted in his cross-examination that he is also co-accused with Inderjit Kaur complainant in cross case filed by the accused. PW-2 is thus an interested witness. PW-3 Fauja Singh, PW-5 Bakshish Singh and PW-7 Kashmir Singh were declared hostile. PW-7 has stated that complainant 3 is the wife of his brother-in-law. This witness is also an interested witness and his statement cannot be relied upon in its entirety. He had stated that the pipes were handed over to the police by Om Parkash but as per memo Ex.PW-1/C the pipes were handed over to the police by the complainant vide Ex.PW-1/C. There are material contradictions in the statements made by the prosecution witnesses examined by the prosecution and majority of them have turned hostile. PW-2 and PW-7 are interested witnesses and their testimonies cannot be relied upon and have rightly been discarded by the trial court as well. There are material contradictions with regard to possession of danda by the police. The accused have also filed a cross case against the complainant. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondents. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged. January 10, 2008 (g) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J