IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.: 546 of 2002 Reserved on: May 27, 2009. Date of decision: June 15, 2009. State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Mandeep Singh & Anr. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Dr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The State has come in appeal against the judgment dated March 30, 2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No. 5 in Criminal case No. 65- 2 of 2001 acquitting the respondents for offence punishable under Sections 341, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that PW-1 Brij Sharma, vide Rapat No. 27 entered in Rojnamcha No. 27 of 2001, Ex. PW-3/A reported at Police Post Lakkar Bazar, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Shimla that at 7.45 PM on August 28, 2001 he and one Ashok Goel were returning to their homes from Lakkar Bazar. At place near residential quarters of Central staff, two unknown boys came from behind. They stopped him on the road and asked his name and address. A boy who was comparatively taller hit him with some object and told him that he had been directed to kill him. The blood started oozing out from the injuries. The said boy left him but other boy who was comparatively shorter started beating him. He can recognize those boys by faces. Thereafter, taller boy gave beatings to Ashok. The two boys ultimately ran away towards State Bank. 3. The police recorded FIR Ex. PW-5/A. The site plan, Ex. PW-4/B was prepared, PW-1, Brij Sharma produced vest which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW-1/A. The complainant was got medically examined vide MLC, Ex. PW-6/B. The X-ray report Ex. PW-6/A was obtained, and after completion of investigation challan was presented against the respondents. They were charged for offence punishable under Sections 341, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty. 4. The prosecution had examined six witnesses and produced some documents to bring home the charge. The - 3 - statements of respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., they denied the prosecution case but led no evidence in defence. The Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondents, Hence, this appeal. 5. Heard and perused the record. The Addl. Advocate General has submitted that the trial Court has misinterpreted the evidence on record. The prosecution has proved the case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment. 6. PW-1 Brij Sharma complainant has stated that Mandeep Singh attacked him thrice with some object and blood started oozing out. Thereafter, Mandeep Singh started beating Ashok. Yoginder Thakur, gave him beatings with kick blows. In cross examination he has stated that he cannot tell with what object he was given beatings. Gopal had also suffered injury on left side of his ear. 7. PW-2, Ashok Goel has stated that Mandeep Singh had given blow on the head of PW-1 with some sharp edged object. Mandeep Singh also hit him near the ear with fist blow. He could not identify the object with which blow was given to Mandeep Singh. Yoginder Thakur - 4 - did not beat him but he gave beatings to PW-1 with kick blows. In cross examination, he has stated that occurrence took place on busy road. He sustained injury on the left ear. 8. PW-6, Dr. Rakesh Kumar, examined Brij Sharma and he issued MLC, Ex. PW-6/B, he has also proved X-ray report Ex. PW-6/A. In cross examination, he has stated that the injuries can be caused due to fall. 9. In rapat No. 27, Ex. PW-3/A, PW-1 has not named the accused but how the accused were identified during the investigation that has not been explained by the prosecution. PW-2 has stated that occurrence took place on a busy road but prosecution has not examined any independent person in support of the prosecution case. 10. A perusal of rapat No. 27 indicates that PW-1 was attacked with some object by taller boy. In Ex. PW- 3/A, there is no indication that PW-1 was attacked thrice. PW-1 in his statement in the Court has stated that he was attacked thrice by Mandeep Singh. He has thus improved his version which he had given in rapat Ex. PW-3/A. PW-1 has stated that thereafter Mandeep Singh gave beatings to PW-2 Ashok Goel. PW-2, Ashok Goel has stated Mandeep Singh hit PW-1 on head with some sharp edged weapon. - 5 - He has not stated that Mandeep Singh thrice attacked PW-1, he has thus not supported the statement of PW-1 who has stated that Mandeep Singh attacked him thrice. 11. PW-2 has stated that Mandeep Singh hit him near ear with fist blow and he sustained injury on the left ear. There is nothing on record to show that PW-2 was examined by the doctor and the Investigating Officer obtained MLC of PW-2 regarding his alleged injury on left ear. PW-6, Dr. Rakesh Kumar has stated that injuries noticed by him in MLC, Ex. PW-6/B can be caused due to fall. 12. PW-1 has stated that Mandeep Singh had produced “Kara”, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex. PW-1/B which was signed by him and Ashok Goel. PW-2, Ashok Goel has stated that Ex. PW-1/B was not signed by PW-1 in his presence. Thus, recovery of Kara, Ex. PW-1/B is suspicious. 13. The Court below has appreciated the material on record properly and has taken a possible view from the record in acquitting the respondents. The prosecution has failed to point out any perversity in the impugned judgment. The view taken by the Judicial Magistrate in acquitting the respondents emerges from the evidence on record. No case for interference is made out. - 6 - 14. In view of above the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds of respondents are discharged. (Kuldip Singh), Judge. June 15, 2009. (KC)