The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's acquittal if it is based on a proper appreciation of the evidence.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The instant appeal stands directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment rendered on 22.7.2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. III, Hamirpur, H.P., in Police Challan No. 22-I-2004, RBT 82-II-2004, whereby, he acquitted, the accused for theirs allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 341, 325, 323 and 504, IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC.

2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 5.6.2003, when S.I. Des Raj was on routine patrol at Bhota Chowk then complainant Meera Devi got her statement recorded with him. It was revealed by the complainant that on the same day at about 7.00 p.m., she was working with her sisters Sunita Devi and Maya Devi in the fields. Dhani Ram and his wife Parveena Kumari came to her and started abusing her. They started saying that they would not allow them to pass through the path which has been going through their land. Dhani Ram as also Parveena Kumari gave beatings to her along with her two sisters with 'dandas' and stones. It was also revealed by the complainant that one of her teeth has been broken and that she wants to get medical examination done. On the basis of this statement, an FIR was recorded in the police station concerned. Thereafter, the police completed all the codel formalities.

3. On conclusion of the investigation, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared, and, filed before the learned trial Court.

4. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court for theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 341, 325 and 323 IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused, under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were, recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein, the accused claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication, and, tendered in evidence Ext. D-1 and Ex. D-7.

5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused/respondents herein.

6. The State of H.P., stands aggrieved, by the judgment of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused/respondents, by the learned trial Court. The learned Addl. Advocate General for the State, has concertedly, and, vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based, on a proper appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by it, of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal warranting reversal by this Court in the exercise, of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs standing replaced by findings of conviction.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondents herein, has, with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court rather standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication.

8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record.

9. Initially upon Police Challan No.22-I-2004, RBT 82-II-2004, the learned trial Court had pronounced an order of conviction upon the accused. However in an appeal carried therefrom, by the accused/respondents herein, before the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, the latter, on anvil of MLC Mark-X authored by PW-9, Dr. Chaman Lal, remaining unproved besides un-exhibited, especially during the course of the trial, hence, he ordered for recalling of PW-9, for, his hence proving mark-X. Consequently, also the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur on 9.1.200