1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 729 of 2002. Decided on: July 6, 2009. State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Mehar Singh & ors ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr P.K.Sharma, Addl.A.G. and Mr.P.M.Negi, Dy.A.G. For the respondents: Mr N.S. Chandel Advocate. R.B.Misra, Judge (Oral): Heard Mr.P.K.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant / State and Mr.N.S. Chandel, learned counsel for respondents. 2. The present criminal appeal has arisen consequent upon granting leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the impugned judgment dated 26.11.2001, passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, HP in Criminal case No. 108-II/99 for the alleged involvement of the accused-respondents, u/s 325, 323, 506/34 IPC, acquitting the alleged accused/ respondents. 2. In order to adjudicate the present criminal appeal, it is necessary to refer the prosecution case in brief. Complainant, Krishan Lal is resident of village Ichhi Patola. On 30.6.1999 at about 10 PM, Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? 2 Ashok Kumar in a drunken state carrying danda in his hand, while going towards his house, pelted stones on the house of complainant. Complainant came out and advised Ashok Kumar not to pelt stones. Then Ashok Kumar caught the complainant by his collar and started beating the complainant with said danda. On raising voice, wife of the complainant and her brother came out for his rescue, but the alleged accused also started beating them. In the meanwhile, Ashok Kumar’s brother, mother and father also came there and started beating the complainant party. After investigation, charge for alleged offence under sections 325, 325 read with section 34 and Section 506 IPC was made out. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses, whereas the alleged accused persons have denied the prosecution case in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 4. On the basis of material on record, following three points were framed for determination. First and second points were answered in negative and in reference to third point, alleged accused / respondents were acquitted for the alleged offence. 1. Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused persons in furtherance of common intention of each other Voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous hurt to the complainant party. ?. 2. Whether the prosecution has proved that in furtherance of common intention of each other accused persons criminally intimidated the complainant party. ?. 3. Final order. 5. Learned trial court, however, on perusal of the documents, testimonies, prosecution witnesses and material on record had relied 3 upon the improbabilities that the complainant party including Krishan Lal and Shakuntala Devi, his wife and the alleged accused party were said to have been involved in quarrel for about 30 minute. It is also admitted by PW-3, Shakuntala Devi that there are houses adjoining to their house. However, according to the testimony of complainant, nobody has come to the spot. This is hardly acceptable that people from the vicinity did not come out from the adjoining houses even when the hue and cry is going on. It has also been noticed by the learned trial court that no one has stated that the accused party also had sustained injuries in the incident. Then, it is fatal on the part of prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the alleged accused. 6. On the basis of basis of analysis of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, the trial court has rightly found that the prosecution has failed to prove the story beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the prosecution was not able to establish the guilt. 7. In view of the above discussion / analysis, there appears to be no illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused / respondents are hereby discharged. July 6 2009. ( R.B.Misra ) (sl) Judge