IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.686 of 2002 Decided on: July 10, 2009. State of H.P. …Appellant Versus Anil Kumar and another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General For the Respondents : Mr. V.S. Rathore, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 16.7.2002 of learned trial Magistrate, whereby respondents, who were tried for offences, under Sections 451, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, have been acquitted. 2. Case was registered against the respondents at the instance of PW-5 Anil Kumar, who reported that on 1.9.2001, respondents came to his Public Call Office, at a place called Rait, within the area of Police Station, Shahpur, and started asking about his sister and when he objected to it, they hurled abuses with a view to provoking him to commit breach of peace. He further reported that soon thereafter his father reached there and on seeing him, respondents tried to flee in their van by which they had come to his booth, but his father managed to catch hold of one of them, namely Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… respondent Anil Kumar. Police investigated the case and challaned both the respondents. 3. Respondents denied the prosecution case and pleaded innocence. Trial Court acquitted both of them, at the end of the trial. 4. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the record. 5. Anil Kumar, while in the witness box as PW-5, gave a different narration of the incident. As per his statement in the Court, respondents came to his booth and asked him to allow them to make a call and when he asked for money in advance, they manhandled him and hurled abuses at him. He did not utter even a word about their enquiring about his sister with a view to provoking him. Further he stated that when the respondents were still in his booth, his father reached there and he (his father), with the help of some neighbours, managed to apprehend both the respondents, on the spot. This fact is contrary to the version given to the police. 6. Contradiction in the earliest version and the testimony of Anil Kumar not only renders the prosecution version unbelievable, but also suggests that this is a case of trivial nature between an STD booth owner and users of telephone facility. Hence, no fault can be found with the judgment of trial Court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. July 10, 2009 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J.