IMPORTANT POINT
Appellate Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible though the view of the appellate Court may be more probable.

JUDGMENT

P.S.Rana, J.—Present appeal is filed against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2008 titled Ajay Shakti and another Vs. State of HP.

Brief Facts Of The Prosecution Case:

2. It is alleged by prosecution that on dated 10.12.2004 at about 8.30 PM near Sankat Mochan temple police station Sujanpur H.P accused persons in furtherance of common intention had committed theft of Rs.6,700/- (Six thousand seven hundred) from the property of complainant Baldev Singh after having made preparation for causing hurt. It is alleged by prosecution that on the same date, time and place accused persons have wrongfully restrained complainant Baldev Singh from proceeding further on his way. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter accused persons in furtherance of common intention had voluntarily caused hurt to complainant Baldev Singh and beaten him. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter accused persons in furtherance of common intention threatened complainant Baldev Singh to do away with his life. It is alleged by prosecution that FIR Ext PW4/A was registered against accused persons and spot map Ext PW12/A was prepared and MLC of complainant Baldev Singh Ext PW12/B was obtained. It is alleged by prosecution that jacket took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW4/A and cash to the tune of Rs.6,700/- (Six thousand seven hundred) was also took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW7/A. It is alleged by prosecution that sample of seal on a piece of cloth Ext PW12/C and Ext PW12/D also obtained and statements of prosecution witnesses recorded as per their versions. It is alleged by prosecution that complainant Baldev Singh was medically examined by medical officer Rajinder Kumar CHC Hamirpur who issued MLC Ext PW7/A and X-ray Ext PW7/B was obtained. It is alleged by prosecution that radiologist report Ext PW7/C and dental X-ray report Ext PW7/D were also obtained. Charge was framed against accused persons under Sections 382, 341, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

3. Prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses in support of its case.

Sr.No.	Name of Witness
PW1	Kamal Singh
PW2	Rakesh Verma
PW3	Surjit Kumar
PW4	Baldev Singh
PW5	Raj Kumar
PW6	Goldi
PW7	Rajinder Singh
PW8	Ajay Kumar
PW9	Ram Dayal
PW10	Vijay Kumar
PW11	Vijay Kumar
PW12	Parkash Chand
PW13	Balwant Singh

4. Prosecution also produced following piece of documentary evidence in support of its case:-

Sr.No.	Description
Ext PW4/A	Copy of FIR
Ext PW12/A	Spot map
Ext PW7/C	X-ray form of Baldev Singh
Ext.PW13/D	X-ray film of Baldev Singh
Ext PW7/B	X-ray film of Baldev Singh
Ext PW7/A	MLC of complainant Baldev Singh
Ext PW12/B	Application
Ext PW4/B	Recovery memo
Ext PW7/A	Recovery memo
Ext PW13/A	Recovery memo
Ext PW12/C &	Sample of seal
Ext.PW12/A	on cloth
Ext PW12/E	Statement of Vijay Kumar
Ext PW12/F	Statement of Surjit Kumar

5. Statement of accused persons also recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. Accused persons did not lead any defence evidence. Learned trial Court convicted the accused persons under Sections 382, 341, 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced both accused persons with simple imprisonment for one year for the commission of offence punishable under Section 382 IPC and also imposed fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) to each. Learned trial Court further directed that in default of payment of fine both accused persons would undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Learned trial Court also sentenced both accused persons with simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC and also sentenced both accused