In appeal against acquittal, material contradictions in interested witnesses' inconsistent testimonies, absence of independent corroboration and two possible views from evidence justify upholding acquittal without interference.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment of acquittal dated 16.06.2011 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmour, District Nahan, Himachal Pradesh in case No.1/2 of 2010/09 titled Gaurav Joshi & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby learned trial held respondents-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) not guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 341,323 and 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and accordingly acquitted them.

2. In nutshell, case of the prosecution is that complainant Jitender Kumar alongwith Mohd. Abid and Kira was going from Delhi Gate to popular Dhaba near Hindu Ashram Road, Nahan and at around 3.00 PM near Science Block, Nahan, accused Gaurav Joshi came on the road and stopped them. Allegedly, when accused Gaurav Joshi misbehaved with Kira, complainant interfered, but in turn accused Gaurav Joshi gave fist blow on his nose and Kira due to fear fled away from the spot, whereas Mohd. Abid also tried to patch up the matter, but yet accused Gaurav Joshi started giving beatings to him. Allegedly, accused Gaurav Joshi called his brother Saurabh and Kamal through telephone call and thereafter, all the accused started giving beatings to the complainant and Mohd. Abid, who subsequently were rescued by Dharam Pal, owner of the Dhaba and Nazir, who came on the spot after having heard their cries. Dharam Pal and Abid have taken the shops from the father of the accused Gaurav Joshi and Saurabh Joshi on rent and allegedly, accused gave beatings to the complainant and Mohd. Abid with a view to get the possession of the shop. In the aforesaid background, matter came to be reported to the police by the complainant and accordingly, FIR(Ex.PW1/A) under Sections 341, 325 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered against the accused at police Station Nahan.

3. Police got Jitender Kumar and Mohd. Abid medically examined and procured MLCs Ex. PW4/A and PW4/B, wherein doctor opined injuries on the person of Mohd. Abid to be simple and on the person of Jitender as grevious in nature. After having completed investigation, police presented the challan in the competent court of law, which having found prima-facie case against the accused charged them under Sections 341, 325 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as 6 witnesses, whereas accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. CPC, denied the case of the prosecution in toto and claimed trial.

5. Learned trial Court on the basis of the entire evidence led on record held accused not guilty and accordingly, acquitted them. In the aforesaid background, appellant-State has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for conviction of the accused after setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Court below.

6. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and gone through the record carefully.

7. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while making this Court peruse the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by learned trial Court, vehemently argued that Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective and has