IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.602 of 2001 Decided on August 24 , 2009 State of H.P …Appellant Versus Atul Kumar and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal Additional Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. KULDIP SINGH JUDGE (ORAL) State has come in appeal against judgment dated 13.12.2000, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu in Criminal Case No. 220-I of 1996/93-II of 1997, acquitting the respondents for offence punishable under Sections 148, 149,325,342 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the respondents were challaned for having committed offence punishable under Sections 148, 149,325,342 IPC on the allegations that on 03.01.1995, at about 6.00 A.M. at Mohal, Tehsil Kullu, the respondents voluntarily caused hurt to Sher Singh, complainant and also wrongfully restrained him. The respondents were armed with deadly weapons committed rioting. The respondents were Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… charged for offence punishable Sections 148, 149,325,342 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined four witnesses and produced some documents. The respondents were not examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as no case was found against them and they were acquitted, hence, the State has come in appeal 3. Heard and perused the record. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has submitted that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has erred in acquitting the respondents. The material has been mis-construed and misinterpreted by the learned trial Magistrate. The evidence of the prosecution was wrongly closed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 13.12.2000. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has supported the impugned Judgment. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at the time of closing of evidence of the prosecution has noticed that the charge was framed on 21.04.1997. On 28.12.1999 and 15.01.2000, accused Rakesh and Bhagirath made default in appearance but they put in appearance on 22.03.2000. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after giving allowance to the prosecution for the default committed by the accused for not putting appearance, ultimately closed the evidence of the prosecution on 13.12.2000. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant has not assailed the order dated 13.12.2000, whereby the evidence of the prosecution was closed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. On 13.12.2000 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, decided the case itself and …3… acquitted the respondents. The State in the appeal has assailed order dated 13.12.2000 acquitting the respondents and not the order dated 13.12.2000, whereby the evidence of the prosecution was closed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Therefore the appellant is debarred from questioning the legality of the order dated 13.12.2000 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate closing the evidence of the prosecution. 5. PW-1, Yog Raj has stated that police had sealed a bag in his presence. He did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. He was cross examined by the prosecution, he denied portions “A to A” and “B to B” of statement mark ‘A’. He has admitted his signatures Ex. PW-1/A on Memo Mark ‘B’. In the cross examination conducted on behalf of the accused, he has stated that no document was prepared in his presence. 6. PW-2 Alam Chand, Radiographer, has stated that he took X-Rays of Sher Singh on 03.01.1995 under the supervision of Dr. G.D. Gour, which are Exs. P-1 to P-6. PW-3, Dr. Mohan Lal has stated that he had examined Sher Singh on 03.01.1995 and issued MLC Ex. PW-3/A. In cross examination, he has stated that the injuries are possible in accident or in fall also. PW-4, Dr. G.D. Gour has stated that on 01.09.1995 X-Rays of Sher Singh were taken under his supervision and he had perused X-Rays Films Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-3 and issued report Ex. RW-4/A. On 03.01.1995, also X-Rays of Sher Singh were taken which are Exs. P-4 to P-9 and report to this effect is Ex. PW-4/B. In cross examination, he …4… has stated that the injuries found are possible in accident or by way of fall. This is the entire evidence led by the prosecution. 7. Some injuries have been noticed on the person of Sher Singh complainant by PW-3 and in the reports given by PW-4, but there is no evidence on record to show that these injuries were inflicted by the respondents. The complainant Sher Singh has not been examined by the prosecution. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of evidence on record has acquitted the respondents. The view taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in acquitting the respondents cannot be said to be wrong. There is no perversity in the impugned judgment. In fact, there is no evidence on record to connect the respondents with the commission of the offence. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Bail bonds of the respondents are discharged. (Kuldip Singh) Judge August 24, 2009 *BRB*