IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) Nos.989 of 2010 Decided on: October 22, 2010. _______________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. ……..Appellant/Petitioner. Versus Misru Ram and others. …..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondents : None. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral): The respondents were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 325, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.68-II/2003, decided on 1.4.2010. Instant petition for leave to appeal has been moved by the State. 2. Heard and gone through the record of the learned trial Court. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 3. The prosecution case against the respondents has been that they had formed an unlawful assembly and obstructed the path by constructing a ‘Jhugi’ (temporary hut) leading to the house of the complainant, regarding which civil litigation was pending. The parents of the complainant had objected to it, but the respondents’ fisticuffed them, as a result of which tooth from the jaw of the mother of the complainant got uprooted. Accused Parkash Chand died during the trial. With respect to the incident, FIR Ex.PW1/A was lodged. Ultimately, the respondents were implicated as the accused, faced the trial and acquitted at the end. 4. The complainant was not an eye witness. The information about the incident was given by his brother Jeet Kumar, but when examined in the Court, he projected himself to be an eye witness of the occurrence contrary to the initial case set against the respondents by prosecution. 5. PW5 Raj Kumar admitted that Chint Ram had disclosed the names of the respondents to him, which means that he was not knowing that who was the assailant, but admitted that both the parties at the relevant time were hurling abuses to each other. PW3 - 3 - Chint Ram stated that tooth of his wife was extracted by the doctor. Not only this, the police did not obtain the revenue record with respect to the ownership and possession of the land where the alleged Jhugi was being constructed by the respondents. Further, with respect to the same, a civil litigation was admittedly pending inter se the parties. Therefore, in these circumstances, the acquittal of the respondents is justified and the leave to appeal is rejected. 6. In view of the rejection of the leave to appeal, the appeal does not survive, hence dismissed. (Surinder Singh), Judge. October 22, 2010. (Pds)