IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 13 of 1995 Date of decision: 2.3.2009 State of H.P. …. Appellant. Vs. Mohi Ram and another. ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the appellant: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, Camp at Paonta Sahib, in Sessions trial No. 15-N/7 of 1993 decided on 5.1.1994 whereby he acquitted the accused and held that there is no evidence connecting the accused with the crime. It would be pertinent to mention that in view of the evidence on record the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused at the stage of Section 232 Cr.P.C. without calling them to enter into defence. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that one Kairu was an old man. He had no family member and was living in his house in village Tauru falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Paonta Sahib. One lady Sandla lived in a house adjacent to the deceased Kairu. According to the prosecution version on the night intervening 29th and 1st March, 1992 Sandla heard the cries of the deceased Kairu and she heard accused Laiq Ram demanding money from the deceased. According to the prosecution, she also heard Laiq Ram giving beatings to Kairu. Thereafter, she saw the accused Laiq Ram and accused Mohi Ram leaving the house of Kairu. Next day when she went to serve tea to Kairu, she found that he was dead. She informed the residents of the village and the matter was reported to the in-charge police post by one 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment .. Sunder Singh, who is a brother of accused Laiq Ram. Thereafter, the police recorded the case vide F.I.R. No. 41 of 1992 and investigation was conducted. On the basis of the investigation, challan was filed against the accused for having committing offences punishable under Section 449 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Charge was framed against the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The entire prosecution story rests on the statement of PW-2 Sandla. While appearing in Court she did not support the prosecution at all. She has denied that she ever made a statement to the police that on the ill-fated night she had heard the cries of Kairu or that she had heard Laiq Ram demanding money or beating Kairu. She also denied that she had ever made a statement that she had seen accused Laiq Ram and one another person leaving the house of Kairu. The learned Sessions Judge held that since the sole eye witness had not supported the case of the prosecution, the acquittal of the accused was warranted without even calling upon them to lead any defence. We have gone through the statement of PW-2 Sandla and find that she has not at all supported the prosecution version. In fact PW-1 Sunder Singh, at whose instance F.I.R was lodged, has also not supported the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge rightly acquitted the accused. We find no reason to interfere in the said judgement. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. (Deepak Gupta), J. 2nd March, 2009. ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. ™