Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.265 of 2003. Dated of Decision: May 7, 2010. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Bishan Dass and others. ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant : Mr. J.S. Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. For the Respondents : None. Surinder Singh, J (oral) : Heard and gone through the record. 2. The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents, for the offences under Sections 324, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Cr. Case No.288/1 of 1999, decided on 11.2.2002. 3. The incident relates back to the year 1999 and the prosecution case goes like this that around 6.30 p.m. on 30.6.99, the respondents were cutting the leaves and branches of ‘Buel’ tree for fodder and the complainant Saroti Devi asked them not to do so. Upon this, accused Chander Kishan @ Guddi started hurling abuses upon her - 2 - and thereafter the other co-accused ganged up together and picked up a quarrel with her. It is alleged that she was given ‘darati’ blow by accused Ram Krishan @ Sunil Kumar, thus materially contradicted when examined in the court. She changed the entire story with respect to the attack upon her. She testified on oath that it was Chander Kishan @ Guddi, who had given ‘darati’ blow to her. It is also not proved on record as to whether the said ‘Buel’ tree fell in the land owned and possessed by the complainant party, as no demarcation was taken and it is also not known under what authority the complainant had deterred the respondents from cutting the leaves from the said ‘Buel’ tree. 4. Further, there is another contradiction in the prosecution story. Saroti Devi is alleged to have been given only one blow with the ‘darati’ in question, which hit on her head causing sharp edged injury size1.2 cm x 2mm x2mm, which was simple in nature, but in her cross- examination, she was found to have sustained one more injury on her forehead, which was in the shape of haemotoma for which there was no explanation. 5. There is no independent eye witness to lend strength to her version. Therefore, in these circumstances, - 3 - there are no grounds to convert the acquittal into conviction and the reasoning given by the learned trial court for acquitting the respondents are borne out from the record. Hence, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 6. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of this case. 7. Send down the records. May 7, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.