IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.A.No. 503/2001 Reserved on:9.7.2008 Decided on:18.8.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. Versus Rakesh Kumar alias Bablu. …Respondent 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 Respondent : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. The accused was prosecuted in criminal case No. 147-2 of 1999 in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohru, District Shimla for offences punishable under section 323,325 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and vide judgment dated 8.5.2001 he was acquitted by the trial court of the charges levelled against him. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal, as gathered from the judgment of the trial court, are that on 24.4.1999 when the complainant Amar Chand went to have his lunch in the hotel/dhaba of Sh. Ram Lal at Chunjar, the accused asked him to provide him liquor 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 which request of the accused was turned down by Sh. Amar Singh. The accused thereafter started giving beatings to the complainant resulting in injury on his eye with blunt weapon. The incident is dated 24.4.1999, however, the FIR was registered on 25.4.1999. The matter was investigated by the police and the challan was put up in the Court. The prosecution examined as many as five witnesses to prove its case. The accused was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned trial court acquitted the accused on 8.5.2001. The present appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 8.5.2001. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case and the judgment dated 8.5.2001 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate had supported the judgment dated 8.5.2001. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The incident, as noticed above, is dated 24.4.1999. The FIR, however, was registered on 25.4.1999. The only explanation given for the delay in lodging the FIR is that Amar Chand was injured. Amar Chand has appeared as PW-3. He has deposed that Tikkar is at the distance of 2-3 KMs from Bagdhar and he had reached there at about 3-4 P.M. He did not report the matter at Tikkar Police Post. It was only when he came back to Rohru by taking lift in a truck the FIR was registered. The other explanation for not lodging the FIR immediately was that he was given threats by the accused. The FIR is Ex.PW-3/A. PW-4 is Jai Prakash. He is real uncle of PW-3 Amar Singh. He has not seen the object with which the injury was caused. However, according to him, the scuffle had taken 3 place. He has not seen the accused taking liquor. He has admitted that there are houses and one Dhara of Sunder Singh in the vicinity of the spot. He has further stated that there were three other shops but the same were closed. PW-2 Ram Lal owner of the Dhaba has not supported the version of the prosecution and was declared hostile. PW-5 is Chandermani, who has carried out the investigation of this case. He has prepared the site plan Ex.PW-5/A. He has deposed that there were 4-5 hotels near the spot of occurrence. He has admitted that he did not take the rod in possession with which the alleged injury was caused. Constable Daulat Singh from police post has not been examined. No independent witness has been associated by the prosecution though available. It has come in the evidence that in the vicinity of the spot, there were houses and shops. The incident has taken place during day time; it was bound to be seen by many persons. The owner of the Dhaba, where the alleged beatings were administered to the complainant, has not supported the version of the prosecution. The weapon of offence was neither identified nor recovered by the prosecution. The trial court after correct appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution has rightly acquitted the accused. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail/surety bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. August 18, 2008 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*