IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.A.No.213 of 2001 Reserved on 7.1.2008 Date of decision 10.1.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Sanjay Kumar and anr. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr.M.A.Khan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr.Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma,J. The respondents were prosecuted under Sections 324/323 IPC in Criminal Case No.72-II/95 in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.2, Palampur District Kangra,H.P. and were acquitted on 26.4.2000. The State has filed the present appeal against the acquittal of the respondents. The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 3.3.1995 at about 4.40 p.m. accused Sanjay Kumar had called PW-2 Madan Lal from his house, when PW-1 Suti Devi came out of her house Sanjay Kumar assaulted her with knife in furtherance of common intention of other co-accused Shakuntla Devi and caused injury with knife to Suti Devi. FIR Ex.PW-9/A was registered against the accused. The matter was investigated and challan was put up. The prosecution to prove its case has examined nine witnesses. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 respondents were acquitted by the trial court on 26.4.2000, hence this appeal by the State. Mr. M.A.Khan, learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused. He then contended that the trial court has not correctly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution which has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. Mr.Kulbhushan Khajuria, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had supported the judgment of the trial court dated 26.4.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. In the FIR what has been stated is that Sanjay Kumar had given knife blow on the head of complainant Suti Devi. There is no mention that any person except the accused persons was present on the spot. In her testimony before the court she had specifically stated that it was one Milap who told her that somebody wants to see her and thereafter Sanjay Kumar came on the spot and gave knife blow on her head. Milap Chand has not been examined by the police as a witness though he was according to statement of PW-1 was present on the spot. PW-2 Madan Lal has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not seen Sanjay Kumar giving blows on the head of PW-1 Suti Devi. PW-1 has also stated in her statement that her two daughters were also on the spot, but only one daughter Godaun Devi, PW-3 has been examined. The recovery of knife Ex.P5 vide memo Ex.PW-9/C is also doubtful since neither Milap Chand nor Madan Lal who have signed the recovery memo have been produced as witness. PW-6 Sunita Devi was declared hostile. PW-3 in her cross- examination has admitted that she has not seen accused giving knife blow to her mother. There are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and the trial court has rightly acquitted the respondents. 3 Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons. There is neither any misreading nor mis- appreciation of the evidence led before the trial court. The judgment passed by the trial court calls for no interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged. January 10,2008(g) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J.