1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 8 of 2000 Decided on September 13,2010 ________________________________________________ State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Sanjeev Kumar & Others ...Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. ¹Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General,with Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For respondents No.1 to 6, 8 and 11 : Ms.Uma Manta, Advocate. Justice R.B. Misra,J. (Oral) The present Criminal Appeal has come up for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in reference to judgment dated 21.6.1999, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dharamshala, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 20-II/96, under Sections 147, 149, 326 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, acquitting the alleged accused/respondents. 2. The prosecution case is that Arvind Kumar has made a statement under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., that on 14.9.1995, at about 12 noon, while he was sitting with one Vishal Kumar and others 4-5 students, in the garden of school in the vacant period, accused Sanjeev Thakur @ Khalnayak alongwith Manjeet Kumar @ Manju and one another person came there. Accused-respondent Sanjeev Kumar was holding a Drat and another accused-respondent namely Manjeet Singh 2 @ Manju was holding a Khukari as well as other persons were also holding Khukries in their hands and without asking anything they started beating Arvind Kumar and due to beating his thumb was cut and accused-respondent Manju also gave a blow of Khukhari and caused injuries to him, however, friends of Arvind Kumar, namely, Vishal Katoch and Viney Kumar saved him from the hands of the accused persons. 3. After investigation, all the accused were charged for the offences under Sections 147, 149, 326 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 prosecution witnesses. Whereas, the accused through their statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., have denied the prosecution case. 4. PW.1 Dr.N.L. Negi, who examined the injured and issued MLC Ex.PW.1/A, PW.2 complainant Arvind Pathania, PW.3 Vinay Kumar witness of the spot, PW.4 Bhim Singh is also witness of the occurrence, PW.5 Amar Nath Sharma was the principal of Senior Secondary School, Dharamshala, PW.6 Sh.Madan Lal in whose presence the police has taken in possession the shirt of Arvind Pathania vide Fard Ex.PW.2/A, PW.6 Bhagwan Dass, in whose presence the accused persons produced the Drat and Khukaries, PW.7 Tilak Raj is also witness of the spot, PW.8 Vishal Katoch also witness of the spot, PW.9 Onkar Singh, who recorded the rapat Ex.PW.9/A, PW.10 Prittam Singh is the witness of the recovery and PW.11 SI Bidhi Chand Investigating Officer. 5. On scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we find that Arvind Pathania was asked to identify the 3 accused persons, however, on providing opportunity, he could not recognize the accused persons and has stated that he has no enmity with the accused persons nor they are his friends. It also appears that while filing the FIR no specific name was disclosed of such persons, who were present in the Court. According to the prosecution, the recovery was made in presence of PW.10 Pritam Singh and PW.6 Bhagwan Dass, however, they have declared hostile and in cross- examination also they have not supported the case of the prosecution. The material witnesses who have witnessed the occurrence have not supported the prosecution case as set-out in the charge sheet. In these circumstances, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful. 6. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, learned Trial Court has carefully analyzed the prosecution witnesses and has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. In our considered view, there is no scope of interference in the findings given by learned Judicial Magistrate. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. 7. The bail bonds furnished by the accused/respondents are hereby discharged. (R.B. Misra) Judge September 13, 2010 (V.K. Sharma) (Purohit) Judge