IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.A. No.98/2001 Reserved on.28.12.2007 Decided on.1.1.2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Guddu Ram. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the appellant : Mr. V.K. Verma, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent Mr. Sunil Goel, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. The respondent was prosecuted in criminal case No. 111-II of 1994 for offences punishable under sections 325 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (I), Kangra, H.P. and was acquitted on 16.3.2000. The State has filed this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. The facts in nutshell which can be gathered from the judgment of the learned trial court are that on11.5.1993 at about 8.00 A.M., the respondent-accused voluntarily gave beatings to one Ruie Dass. The FIR was registered and the investigation was carried out. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court acquitted 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 the respondent on 16.3.2000, hence, this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent-accused. The learned Additional Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondent-accused. Mr. Sunil Goel, Advocate appearing for the respondent-accused had supported the judgment dated 16.3.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. It has come in the evidence that the accused is nephew of complainant Ruie Dass. The Darat was produced by PW-1 to the police. It is not plausible that the accused will leave behind the darat after giving beatings to the complainant Ruie Dass. PW-2 has also not explained how PW-1 came in possession of the darat. Son of Ruie Dass, who has also been stated to have rescued him, namely, Ashok Kumar has not been examined but given up by the prosecution. He was material witness since he was present on the spot. The explanation for not producing him is that it would have amounted to repetition. There is nothing on record to suggest that who was the aggressor and caused injury on the person of Ruie Dass. There is enmity between the parties with regard to possession of the land. There is no eye witness which has seen the accused giving darat blow to Ruie Dass. The trial court on the basis of correct appreciation of the prosecution evidence has rightly acquitted the respondent-accused vide judgment dated 16.3.2000. In view of the observations made hereinabove, this Court will not interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 16.3.2000 acquitting the respondent. 3 The result of the above discussion is that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. ( Rajiv Sharma), Judge January 1,2008 *Awasthi*