JUDGMENT V.K.Ahuja, J.(Oral)-This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class (II), Shimla dated 22.6.2002 vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 341,147,323,506 read with Section 149 IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 12.9.1999 at about 2.30 P.M. Sunder Singh Driver along with Mohinder Singh Conductor were going in Truck No. HP-51-1285 and when they reached at Village Jablanda, they found that the accused persons were dancing on the road under the influence of the liquor and they did not allow them to proceed further. They both requested the accused persons but they gave beatings to them. On this report lodged by conductor PW-1 Mohinder Singh, a case was registered and after medical examination and completion of the investigation the challan was filed as against the respondents under the above-mentioned sections and they were tried by the learned trial Court leading to their acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. A perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Court would show that the trial Court has mentioned two infirmities which weighed with it in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt as against the respondents. The first infirmity is that both the conductor PW-1 Mohinder Singh and the driver PW-2 Sunder Singh have stated that all the respondents numbering six, came inside the truck and gave them beatings. The trial Court has rightly observed that it is not possible that six persons can enter the truck when two persons are already there and give them beatings. The other infirmity pointed out by the learned trial Court that the Conductor Mohinder Singh PW-1 has stated that the driver ran away from the spot after the quarrel while the driver PW-2 Sunder Singh has stated that they both ran away from the spot after the quarrel. 5. It is also in evidence that the owner of the truck was called who shifted these persons. There is nothing in the evidence that they were shifted in one vehicle or were shifted separately. 5. It is also in evidence that the owner of the truck was called who shifted these persons. There is nothing in the evidence that they were shifted in one vehicle or were shifted separately. Apart from the above infirmity, one fact has been noticed and not mentioned by the trial Court that the complainant PW-2 Mohinder Singh has stated that the accused persons were not known to them and they had seen them in Court after the occurrence but no identification parade was conducted and there is nothing to show as to how the identity of all the respondents was established from the prosecution evidence. This question appears to have not been discussed by the learned trial Court but in view of the statements of the witnesses that the respondents were unknown to them and that they ran away from the spot to save their lives and saw the accused persons in Court, it cannot be said that the identify of the respondents was established beyond any reasonable doubt. 6. In view of the above discussion, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse calling for interference by this Court. There is no merit in the appeal filed by the State of H.P. which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent stand discharged.