In appeals against acquittal, interference warranted only if trial court's judgment patently perverse, misreads evidence, or no reasonable acquittal view possible on record.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.04.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondents (accused before learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, and 325, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police filed a charge sheet against the accused persons for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 325 read with Section 149 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant, Rajnish Kumar, was running a shop. He and his brother Sajneesh Kumar (PW2) were closing the shop on 14.02.2009 at about 8:30 PM. Rakesh Kumar @ Rinku and Pankaj @ Pinku came to the shop and started abusing them. Rakesh Kumar inflicted a blow on the informant’s head by means of a brick. Rakesh and Pankaj gave beatings to the informant and Sajneesh Kumar (PW2). Prakash Chand, Shareshtha Devi and Mona Devi also came to the spot. They also gave beatings to the informant and his brother. The matter was reported to the police. An entry (Ext.PW8/A) was recorded in the police station. An application (Ext.PW-10/E) was filed for medical examination of the injured. Dr Inder Mohan (PW9) examined Rajnish Kumar (PW1) and found that he had sustained multiple injuries. He referred Rajnish Kumar (PW1) to the Dental Surgeon for expert opinion. Dr Randeep Kumar (PW6) examined Rajnish Kumar (PW1) and found that one tooth was missing. He issued the report (Ext.PW6/A). Dr Inder Mohan (PW9) issued a final opinion stating that the nature of the injury was grievous, which could have been caused within six hours of the examination. He issued the MLC (Ext.PW9/A). Dr Inder Mohan (PW9) examined Sajneesh Kumar (PW2) and found that he had sustained multiple injuries, which could have been caused by means of a blunt weapon. He issued the report (Ext.PW9/B). The police registered the FIR (Ext.PW10/F) after the receipt of the medical opinion. ASI Dalip Singh (PW10) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW10/A). Rajnish Kumar (PW1) produced three pieces of bricks (Ext.P1 to Ext.P3) which were put in a cloth parcel, the parcel was sealed with four impressions of seal ‘M’, and it was seized vide memo (Ext.PW1/A). Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused persons. When the accused persons appeared, they were charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 325, read with Section 149 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses to prove its case. Informant Rajnish Kumar (PW1) and the victim S