IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 293 of 2009. Date of Decision: 18th March, 2011. _______________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus Sukh Dev Singh and others …..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) The learned trial Court acquitted respondents in Criminal Case No.92-II of 2004, vide its detailed judgment passed by it on 15.10.2008, for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 323, 341 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The State felt aggrieved, filed the present appeal. 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 3. In short, the prosecution case is that on 2.3.2003 at about 6.45 p.m., PW1 Kiran Bala was in her house. It is alleged that the respondents committed Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - house-tress-pass, hurled abuses and gave beatings to her and her son. At about 7.30 p.m., they again came to her house, carrying sticks in their hands, broke the electricity bulbs and other articles. When she was going to lodge a report to police they restrained her and threatened her life. PW2 Shakuntla Devi, Sakshi, Chhindo Devi and Sareen also came to the spot. On seeing them, the accused-respondents fled away. Thereafter she went to the Police Station and lodged FIR Ext.PW1/A. 4. Police visited the spot, prepared the site plan, took into possession sticks Ext.P.1 and P2, broken pieces of bottle Ext.P3 and pieces of pitcher Ext.P4. Photographs of the place of incident were also taken. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and ultimately finalized the Challan under the aforesaid Sections and presented it in the Court for the trial of the respondents. 5. The respondents were charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted by the learned trial Court for the aforesaid offences on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against them. 6. On the scrutiny of the evidence, it has come on record that the complainant party indulged in the illicit liquor trade and their neighbourers, including the - 3 - respondents got fed-up with this nefarious activity. There is also an admission to this effect by the complainant herself that she alongwith her son PW3 both were facing trial in the excise cases. The breaking of the pitcher and other material are indicative of the rage ventilated by some persons and the complainant held the respondents responsible for the same. 7. The alleged incident took place at the place where there are many houses in the vicinity, but no witness had come forward to support the version of the complainant. Though, the complainant and her son are alleged to have been beaten, but to corroborate their version there is no medical evidence and it is an admitted fact that they refused to undergo medical examination for the reasons best known to them. Though, the version of PW1 Kiran Bala and PW3 Onkar Singh that the respondents committed house tress-pass, but this version goes contrary to the site-plan Ext.PW5/A showing that the incident took place outside her house. Further, none of the witnesses aforesaid stated what were the abuses hurdled by the respondents. The entire prosecution case is shrouded by the suspicious and the witnesses examined to prove the charges were interested and could not, establish the case against the respondents in accordance with law. - 4 - 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are borne out from the record, which require no interference. The appeal is without merit, hence dismissed. 9. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of this case. 10. Send down the record forthwith. March 18, 2011. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)