IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.175 of 2010. Date of decision: 26.08.2010. State of H.P. … …Petitioner Versus Nawab Khan … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents: None. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The State is aggrieved by the judgment of the two Courts below dismissing the case instituted against the respondent herein for offences under Sections 341, 326 and 506 IPC. 2. Before the learned trial Court, it was urged that on 11.2.2005 at about 2.00 P.M. complainant Kuldeep Singh was present near the Khokha of PW-3 Lachhman at Bus Stand, Bilalspur. They took their meal together and at around 2.30 P.M. the accused, who was under the influence of alcohol, came there, obstructed Kuldeep Singh from proceeding towards his house and 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 abused him. At this, Kuldeep asked him not to abuse him whereupon a fight ensued and the accused picked up a rubi (an instrument of repairing shoes) from the shop of PW-3 Lakshman and caused injuries on the face of the complainant Kuldeep. 3. Learned trial Court, on considering the evidence of the complainant, holds that he has nowhere stated that the accused has obstructed his path and then abused him. This is in-fact corroborated by PW-3 Lakshman and PW-4 Anish Chaudhary. So much so PW-3 Lakshman with whom the complainant was having and sharing his meal has not stated anything about the occurrence. The Court also notes that there are about 50 vegetable vendors in or near the shop of Lakshman, but nobody has come forward to say anything against the accused. 4. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge again re-appreciated the evidence and holds that there is no evidence either of the complainant blocking the path of the accused or of the fight taking place as alleged. Most of all when Lakshman himself does not support the case of the prosecution, it becomes difficult to hold that there is perversity in the evidence of the prosecution. There is, thus, no merit in this petition. The revision petition is dismissed. August 26, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.