IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No. 386 of 2001 Date of decision : April 28, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Triloki Nath and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Heard and gone through the record. 2. State has appealed against the judgment of trial Magistrate, whereby respondents, who were charged with and tried for offences, punishable under Sections 451, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 3. First, relevant facts may be noticed. Respondents are husband and wife. Their children allegedly wrote in the verandah of their own house that Mangla Devi, daughter of PW-3 Thakar Dass, is a ghost. On 4.8.1999, Mangla Devi went to the house of the respondents and asked their children as to who had written the aforesaid defamatory words against her. Respondents were not at home at that time. Mangla Devi and the children of the respondents started quarreling. On that, PW-3 Thakar Dass Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… came out and asked the children not to quarrel and that he would speak to the respondents on their return home in the evening. In the evening, the respondents are alleged to have started hurling abuses at PW-3 Thakar Dass. They allegedly trespassed into the house of PW-3 Thakar Dass and threatened to kill him. 4. Prosecution examined Thakar Dass as PW-3 and one PW-2 Raffal Ram, who was Thakar Dass’s guest on that day, to prove its version. 5. The statements of the two witnesses are contradictory to each other. While PW-2 Raffal Ram stated that the two respondents followed PW-3 Thakar Dass to his room, when Thakar Dass, on being threatened, went inside his room, PW-3 Thakar Dass himself did not say that the two respondents entered his room. Again, PW-2 Raffal Ram does not say that any brick was thrown at Thakar Dass, but Thakar Dass says that a brick had been picked up by respondent Triloki Nath and was hurled at him but he shut the door and that is how he escaped unhurt. 6. It appears that this was a trivial matter, arising from a quarrel between the children of the two sides but was blown out of proportion by the complainant side. 7. In view of the abovestated position, I do not see any merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. April 28, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J