The main legal point established is the requirement for credible and corroborative evidence to prove charges, the necessity of establishing the identity of accused persons, and the importance of conducting an identification parade.

V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral)-This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.I, Shimla, dated 1.3.2002, vide which he acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them under Sections 147, 325, 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a statement was made by Shri Vijay Kohli under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. on 30.6.1996 at 2.00 p.m. before the police in which he alleged that today at about 11.00 a.m., he alongwith his wife, were present in their house and was standing at the terrace. Two persons, namely, Ramesh Chand and Rahul Bhargwa, alongwith two other persons, came there and they called him on which he went down. Thereafter, beatings were given to him by Ramesh Chand, Rahul as also by others, with stones, fists and the complainant was also thrown on the ground. On hearing his cries, his wife came to the spot, who was also given beatings with stones etc. The accused persons also gave a threat to take his life. He also alleged about a dispute in regard to house which had been allegedly purchased by him. On this report, a case was registered and after medical examination of the complainant and his wife and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondents, as detailed above, leading to their acquittal.

3. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 and have gone through the record of the case.

4. On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that the prosecution case mainly rests upon the statement of the complainant, his wife, their daughter and one Surender Kumar. The complainant Vijay Kumar has been examined as PW-2. A perusal of his statement shows that he stated that he saw the accused persons Ramesh and Rahul standing outside his house alongwith some other persons, who signaled him and he went down, was given beatings by the accused persons, who also gave abuses to him. He stated that he was thrown on the ground and was given beatings. On hearing his cries, his wife came to the spot and tried to rescue him and the accused persons also gave beatings to her. He stated that a fist blow was given by accused Rahul as a result of which his tooth was broken at that time, which fell on the spot and the same was taken in possession by the police. He was not confronted with his statement under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. Ext.PW-2/C in which there were no specific allegation in regard to the fist blow having been given by Rahul leading to the breaking of his tooth. He should have been confronted with the said report. The complainant admits that the report was lodged by him and it bears his signatures. Therefore, his statement becomes doubtful to some extent.

5. Apart from the above, he has clearly stated that the broken tooth was taken in possession by the police, but the same has not been produced during the trial of the case or shown to the Medical Officer. He stated that the occurrence was witnessed by his daughter Ranjita Kohli, who has been examined by the prosecution as PW-5, who corroborated the statement of the complainant PW-2 to some extent, but her presence was not stated by PW-1 Vinod Kohli, wife of the complainant, that she was present at the spot and had witnessed the occurrence. Therefore, her statement becomes doubtful.

6. PW-1 Vinod Kohli, wife of the complainant, came up with the statement that the occurrence was witnessed by one Surender Bhasin, but his presence has not been stated by PW-2 complainant Vijay Kumar, husband of PW-1 Vinod Kohli. Therefore, the presence of the said Surender Bhasin also becomes doubtful, who has also been examined by the prosecution as PW4, who has nowhere stated that he had witnessed the occurrence. His statement rather shows that he came to the spot after some time and saw the complainant and his wife both in