Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgmentdated 15.02.2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence¹Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. punishable under Section 224 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) (The 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 presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code. It was asserted that the accutsed was an under-trial prisoner. He was to be produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, on 11.07.2013. HHC Dile Ram (PW-1) and Constable Deepak Kumar brought him from Police Line, District Jail, Dharamshala, District Kangra, to the Court; hhowever, the learned Judicial Magistrate was on leave. They brought the accused back to the jail in a bus. They were getting off the bus at 1:20 PM at the old Bus Stand, Palampur, when the accused ran away, taking advantage of the crowd. The informant Dile Ram (PW-1) and Constable Deepak ran after the accused but could not apprehend him. They searched for the accused, but could not find him. HHC Dlie Ram (PW-1) filed an application (Ext.PW-1/A) before the police, and F.I.R. (Ext.PW- 6/A) was registered in the Police Station. HC Sandeep Kumar (PW-6) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW6/C). He seized the duty abstract (Ext.PW-5/A), recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their version, arrested the accused on 12.07.2013 and produced him before the Court. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned trialCourt. f

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. Whetn the accused appeared, he was charged with the commission of an offence punishable under section 224 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty andclaimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to prove hits case. HHC Dile Ram (PW-1) had the custody of the accused.gHHC Narinder Singh (PW-2) and Constable Madan Lal (PW-4)iare the eyewitnesses. HC Dilbhag Singh (PW-3) proved the entry in the daily diary. Constable Malkiat Singh (PW-5) witnessed the recovery. HC Sandeep Kumar (PW-6) investigated the matter. HHC Kushal Kumar (PW-7) proved the entry in the daily diary. Naveen Kumar (PW-8) proved the jailwarrants.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he was brought to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., on 11.07.2013 in the custody of HHC Dile Ram and Constable Deepak. He denied the rest of the prosecution's case. He claimed that he was falsely implficated and that he wasinnocent. He did not produce any evidence in defence.

6. Learned trial Coturt held that the statements of prosecution witnesses contradicted each other on material aspects. An adverse inference has to be drawn for the non- examination of Constable Deepak. The prosecution's evidence did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the hlearned Trial Court acquitted the accused of the commission ofan offence punishable under section 224 of the IPC.i

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, the state has filed the present appeal asserting that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the material on record. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses were discarded without assigning any cogent reason. The accused admitted in his statement recorded u