Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. MP(M) No.860 of 2010. Dated of Decision: September 30, 2010. State of H.P. …. Appellant. Versus Inder Diwan and others. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant : Mr. J.S. Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. For the Respondents : None. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of Protection of Civil Rights Act, passed by the learned trial Court, in Criminal Case No.58-2 of 2007 on 3.10.2009. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. The case of the prosecution has been that on 14.5.2007, Kamal Raj, an employee of ‘Nag Temple Committee, Sangla’ made an 2 announcement on the loudspeaker for holding a general meeting in the courtyard of the said ‘Nag temple’ and invited one member of each family. The complainant party went there to attend the meeting. It is alleged that the workers of the Temple Committee pushed them out of the temple and boycotted them from the meeting. They further declared that they could only be permitted to attend meeting if they would beat ‘Nagara’ (an instrument of music kept in temples). It was also alleged that they were hurled the abuses and were addressed as ‘Chamar’. 4. A complaint Ex.PW1/A was given in writing to the police, which culminated into FIR Ex.PW8/A. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses also took into possession the caste certificates. After completing the investigation, challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondents. 5. The respondents were accordingly charge-sheeted, for the offences aforesaid. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined the complainant and others [PWs 1 to 7] and also the Investigating Officer to prove its case. 3 The respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the circumstances, which were put to them, however, no evidence in defence was led. At the end of trial, respondents were acquitted for the offences charged, which has been challenged in this appeal. 6. Admittedly, there were about 300-400 persons present in the Temple on the day of alleged incident. Although, the names of the alleged offenders finds mentioned in the complaint aforesaid, but except their signatures by few other witnesses, did not acknowledge the allegations made therein. 7. PW1 Smt. Shiv Kumari categorically stated that she did not know who had dragged them out of the temple nor could identify them. Even she stated that she did not know what were the contents of complaint Ex.PW1/A, which was scribed by one Chander Mohan a teacher of their community. 8. PW2 Smt. Furbu Devi stated that they have a dispute only with the deity, but even she did not name the respondents. Further PW3 Smt. Shayam 4 Jani stated that the complaint aforesaid was scribed by the police and she did not know what were its contents. PW4 Smt.Prem Bhagati denied her signatures on the complaint itself. PW5 Krishana Devi and PW6 Smt. Gian Bhagati stated that the aforesaid complaint was written in the police post by Chander Mohan aforesaid. 8. PW7 Tara Devi admitted that the complainant party did not contribute towards funds of the deity and that was the reason for not inviting them to the function, whenever it is celebrated in the temple. She is also categoric that she did not know about the contents of the complaint. 9. Further all the witnesses have unequivocally testified that the people from all castes, whether they are from scheduled caste, scheduled tribes or from upper castes are allowed to enter the temple and there is no bar. But they alleged about same dispute with respect to beating of ‘Nagara’ during the function because of non- contribution of fund to the deity. Therefore, the complainant party was not invited, but came there they were told to beat ‘Nagara’ lest they could 5 leave, but this was not done because of the fact that the respondents were belonging to the lower caste. 10. On over all scrutiny of evidence, I have found that learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that no case was proved against the respondents beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the petition seeking leave to appeal is rejected. 11. In view of the rejection of the leave to appeal, the appeal has also become infructuous. September 28, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.