JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J. Respondents were charge sheeted, tried and acquitted by the learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 Indian penal Code. 2. State felt aggrieved by the impugned judgment as such filed the present appeal. 3. Heard and gone through the record. Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. 4. In short, prosecution story can be stated thus. On 18.2.2000, around 5.15 p.m. Bihari Lal complainant was allegedly standing in his shop at village Silah. Respondents came there and in furtherance of their common intention caught-hold of him and fisticuffed Bihari lal. In the meantime, respondent Bablu dealt a danda blow on the left leg of PW5 Chanchla Devi daughter of the complainant, who was allegedly present there. Bihari Lal was dragged on the road by the respondents and criminally intimidated. In the meantime, PW2 Prem Lata, wife of the complainant also came there. 5. Bihar Lal thereafter reported the matter to the police and got recorded his statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which culminated into the present FIR. 6. Police visited the spot, prepared the site plan of the place of alleged incident and recorded the statements of the witnesses. They also effected the recovery of bamboo stick. Bihari Lal and Chanchla Devi were got medically examined from PW1 Dr. Sunita Kundu in C.H.C. Jawalamukhi. Bihari Lal sustained as many as five injuries on his person which were simple in nature whereas as per Medico Legal Certificate, Ext. PW1/C, Chanchala Devi did not find any visible injury but complained of pain and swelling on the left leg. 7. After completing the investigation, challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondents. At the end of the trial, they were acquitted as aforesaid. 8. During the trial complainant Bihari Lal was not examined. Only his wife PW2 Prem Lata, daughter PW5 Chanchla Devi were examined. No explanation has been given by any of the witnesses as to why Bihari Lal was not examined. However during the trial the learned Public Prosecutor orally submitted that he was paralytic, thus could not be produced. But to substantiate this fact, as already stated above there is not even a passing reference in the statements of any of the witnesses. However during the trial the learned Public Prosecutor orally submitted that he was paralytic, thus could not be produced. But to substantiate this fact, as already stated above there is not even a passing reference in the statements of any of the witnesses. Therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against prosecution. 9. The whole case hinges upon the statement of PW3 Chanchla Devi. Other prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, as they did not support the case of the prosecution. 10. PW2 Prem Lata stated that she was attracted by the cries and came running to the shop and there she found that respondents were giving beatings to her husband. At that time, Chet Ram and PW5 Bararu Ram were present on the spot. She did not say as to whether Chanchla Devi was given beatings though she stated that she was also got medically examined. 11. PW3 Chanchla Devi has blown hot and cold in the same breath. She stated that she was present with her father in the shop and the respondents came there and gave beatings to her and her father. In the same breath, she stated that she was called by her mother and told that respondents were giving beatings to her father. When she reached there, she was also given danda blow on her leg by Bablu. In cross examination, she also contradicted that at the relevant time, she was also cutting grass nearby fields. 12. PW5 Bararu Ram although stated having hit Chanchla Devi with danda but when confronted with his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal procedure this fact did not find mentioned there. Therefore, this version was an improved statement. He admitted that daughter of Bihari Lal used to prepare meals at his residence. Thus he has a reason to support her. He further stated that many persons had gathered at the spot at the time of the alleged incident but some of them PW4 and PW6 when examined, turned hostile. 13. PW4 Moti lal, PW6 Mohan Singh and PW7 Rajinder Singh who are alleged to have been present at the time of the alleged incident turned hostile to the prosecution. 14. On the critical examination of the evidence aforesaid by not examining Bihari Lal aforesaid, an adverse inference has to be drawn and whatsoever PW2 has stated that was contradicted by PW4 in material particulars. 14. On the critical examination of the evidence aforesaid by not examining Bihari Lal aforesaid, an adverse inference has to be drawn and whatsoever PW2 has stated that was contradicted by PW4 in material particulars. Even statement of PW4 is not worth inspiring confidence with respect to the offences charged. Thus, on the scrutiny of the entire evidence, in my considered opinion, prosecution could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt against the respondents. Hence the acquittal of the respondents cannot be interfered with. As such the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of this case.