Judgment : Sanjay Karol, Judge State has appealed against the judgment dated 29.9.2007, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, in RBT S.C. No.23-J/VII/06/05 (ST No.20/07), titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjiv Kumar and others, challenging the acquittal of respondents Sanjeev Kumar @ Goldi, Sujan Singh @ Chhuna and Avtar Singh @ Chhottu (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who were charged for having committed offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 307,382,325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 4.11.2002, Hoshiar Singh (PW-1) was travelling with his daughter Rajani Bala (PW-2) and son Sunil Kumar (not examined), on a scooter bearing No.PB-06-5459. When he reached near village Banal, he found three-four boys, under the influence of alcohol, standing on the road, near the liquor vend. When he slowed down the scooter, one amongst the boys kicked the scooter, as a result of which Hoshiar Singh fell down. Thereafter, these boys started beating and robbed him of his gold chain and `4,000/-. One of the boys was being called as Goldi. When a passerby, who proclaimed himself to be driver of a Judge came, the accused ran away from the spot. Matter was reported to the police. FIR No.209/02, dated 4.11.2002 (Ex. PW-8/B), under the provisions of Sections 307, 382, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station, Jawali, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, by ASI Raj Kumar (PW-8). Investigation was conducted by Inspector Ambia Ram (PW-11), who got the complainant (PW-1), his daughter Rajani Bala (PW-2) and Sunil Kumar medically examined from Dr. Sucha Singh (PW-4) and Dr. Sajan Sharma (PW-5). Medical record (Ex. PW-4/A to 4/C) was taken on record. Investigation revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime. Hence, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused persons were charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 307,382,325/34 of the Indian Penal Code to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses and the statements of accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded, in which they took up a defence of innocence and false implication. 5. 4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses and the statements of accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded, in which they took up a defence of innocence and false implication. 5. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court acquitted all the accused persons of the charged offence. Hence, the present appeal by the State. 6. We have heard Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, learned Additional Advocate General, on behalf of the State as also Mr. V.S. Rathore, Advocate, on behalf of the accused. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. Having done so, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is well reasoned and is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 7. Medical evidence, i.e. MLCs (Ex. PW-4/A to 4/C), proved through the testimonies of Dr. Such Singh (PW-4) and Dr. Sajan Sharma (PW-5), reveals that injuries were found on the body of the complainant (PW-1), his daughter(PW-2) and son. They are grievous in nature. 8. The question, which needs to be considered, is as to whether the accused, inflicted such injuries or not. Significantly, in the instant case, Kuldeep Singh (PW-3), an independent persons, who allegedly witnessed the occurrence of incident, has not supported the prosecution case at all. He states that he could only recognize one of the persons present on the spot. The witness was declared hostile and cross-examined. Now, who was this one person, whom he saw amongst the accused, has not been so disclosed by him. He admits that identity of such person as Sujan was disclosed by him, for the first time, in Court. He admits that by the time he reached the spot, 10-12 persons had already assembled there. Now, if that was so then the prosecution story of the accused fleeing away after arrival of this witness is false. 9. Further, what is important in the instant case is that prosecution has not associated any other independent witness. He admits that by the time he reached the spot, 10-12 persons had already assembled there. Now, if that was so then the prosecution story of the accused fleeing away after arrival of this witness is false. 9. Further, what is important in the instant case is that prosecution has not associated any other independent witness. The alleged offence took place in front of liquor vend, which undisputedly was open and persons were present there. Why is it that police did not associate any one of such persons or has not examined them in Court. Their nonexamination gains significance, in view of uninspiring testimonies of the victim, namely Hoshiar Singh (PW-1) and Rajani (PW-2), who admit not to have known the accused persons from before. According to these witnesses, immediately after the incident, accused fled away from the spot. The alleged incident took place during night. It has come on record that no Test Identification Parade was got conducted by the police. 10. Now, if accused or their parentage or addresses were not known to the complainant, how could he disclose their identity to the police? These witnesses have tried to clarify that one of the assailants present on the spot was called out as Goldi. But then identity of this Goldi has not been proved on record. That Sanjeev Kumar alias Goldi is the very same person, who was present on the spot, has not been explained. 11. Further, according to Rajani (PW-2), there were four-five persons present on the spot, whereas according to PW-1 there were only three-four persons. In this backdrop, non-identification of persons, who inflicted injuries and robbed the victims, acquires significance. 12. What also falsifies the testimony of the witness is the version of Inspector Ambia Ram (PW-11), who admits it to be true that the victim had informed him of having left his chain, ring and money (of which the victim was robbed) at Pathankot. If that be so then where is the question of robbing. This totally shatters the prosecution case. 13. Prosecution has also not explained as to why witness Sunil Kumar was given up and not examined in the Court. 14. If that be so then where is the question of robbing. This totally shatters the prosecution case. 13. Prosecution has also not explained as to why witness Sunil Kumar was given up and not examined in the Court. 14. Hence, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence so as to prove that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, gave beatings to the complainant, his daughter and son and also robbed him of his gold chain and money. 15. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the parties. 16. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.