JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. In relation to FIR No. 72 of 2010, dated 1.4.2010, registered at Police Station, West, Shimla, H.P. accused were charged to face trial for having committed offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 147, 149, 341, 332, 333 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined sixteen witnesses. After framing four points for consideration and appreciating the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, trial court acquitted all the accused persons in relation to the charged offences in terms of judgment dated 29.6.2015, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 30-S/7 of 2011, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Sharma & others. Hence, State has filed the present petition under the provisions of Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking grant of leave to appeal. 3. Record was produced by the learned Dy. Advocate General which was perused and returned. Having heard him and also perused the record, we are of the considered view that no interference is called for in the instant case. We do not find any sufficient or justifiable reason for granting leave to appeal. We also do not find any error in the judgment rendered by the trial Court. 4. In short, it is the case of the prosecution that on 1.4.2010 the police party received a secret information that the accused persons were engaged in the business of bootlegging. At midnight, police conducted raid but the accused attacked the police party as a result of which they sustained injuries. HC Vinod Kumar (PW-4) was obstructed from discharging his duty by the accused who formed an unlawful assembly and committed offence of rioting. 5. At the threshold it be only observed that Madan Sharma (PW-2) and Neeraj Sharma (PW-3) who are the spot and star witnesses of the prosecution were declared hostile and did not support the prosecution in Court. Despite their extensive cross examination, nothing fruitful could be elicited from their testimonies. 6. We find that even the complainant HC Vinod Kumar (PW-4) himself admits in his cross examination that there was no prior information with the police that the accused had illegally stored any alcohol. Witness further admits that information of the police party being assaulted by the assailants (accused) by pelting stones was not disclosed to the superior officers. 6. We find that even the complainant HC Vinod Kumar (PW-4) himself admits in his cross examination that there was no prior information with the police that the accused had illegally stored any alcohol. Witness further admits that information of the police party being assaulted by the assailants (accused) by pelting stones was not disclosed to the superior officers. This omission may or may not be significant but when one minutely examines the testimony of other prosecution witnesses, namely HC Bhajan Chauhan (PW-1) and HC Amit Kumar (PW-5) one finds their testimonies not be fully inspiring in confidence. There are improvements, exaggerations, improbabilities and embellishments apart from certain contradictions. 7. Material point which arises for consideration in the present case is as to whether these witnesses have been able to disclose the identity of the assailants beyond reasonable doubt or not. HC Amit Kumar is an eye witness. He is also one of the injured persons. No doubt in his examination in chief he does state the case of the prosecution as it wants the court to believe, but then when his testimony is viewed in totality, one finds that he is conspicuously silent with regard to the time when police party reached the spot. Also he is not certain about the events which took place there. He does not remember of having informed the Deputy Superintendent of Police about the occurrence of the incident. His presence on the spot appears to be doubtful. 8. It be observed that Dy. S.P. Vijay Sharma did visit the spot but then he is not cited as a witness. Also prosecution did not associate him during investigation. Why so? remains unexplained. He was a superior officer. Police officials stood injured. There was a law and order problem. Yet no action was taken by him. Why so? remains unexplained. This further renders the prosecution case to be doubtful. 9. It is not the case of prosecution that identities of the accused were known from before to the complainant or the police party present on the spot. After all, they had only received information that local people had formed an unlawful assembly and were committing offence of rioting. Now complainant does not state that accused Pradeep Kumar was arrested on the spot. Version of the Investigating Officer Mathura Dass (PW-16) is also to this effect. After all, they had only received information that local people had formed an unlawful assembly and were committing offence of rioting. Now complainant does not state that accused Pradeep Kumar was arrested on the spot. Version of the Investigating Officer Mathura Dass (PW-16) is also to this effect. Admittedly no test identification parade was got conducted by the police. It is not the case of prosecution that the identity of this accused was disclosed by other witnesses. Then how is it that the police reached this accused, remains unexplained on record. 10. Further, complaint (Ext.PW-4/A) does not record the fact that the road was blocked by motorcycles. If that were so then what was the occasion for the police to have impounded the same? It appears that prosecution has not disclosed the incident in its entirety. 11. We are in full agreement with the findings returned by the Court below in paragraphs 45 and 46 of the judgment, rendering the version of the police officials to be doubtful. 12. What further needs to be considered is the contradiction in the testimonies of police officials with regard to the time when they reached the spot. 13. Hence, in view of the uninspiring and shaky testimonies of the witnesses, in the absence of any corroboration, we are of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the charged offences. 14. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the trial Court. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94 , since it cannot be said that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice, no interference is warranted in the instant case. For all the aforesaid reasons, present petition, devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any.