JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. This appeal has been filed by the State against judgment of acquittal dated 7.7.2007, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Criminal Appeal No. 34-D/2005/03, vide which respondents/accused herein, have been acquitted by the learned First Appellate Court by setting aside judgment of conviction passed against them by the Court of learned JMIC(1), Dharamshala in Criminal Case No. 11-II/03 dated 3.4.2003 and 4.4.2003. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.12.2002 at around 9:15 p.m. complainant, Ashwani Kumar, was coming in his personal vehicle Tata-407 from Jassor towards Kangra. When he reached at a place known as Chattri on the National Highway, all accused by forming an unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object committed rioting and wrongfully restrained the complainant and his driver from proceeding in a direction in which they had right to proceed by standing on the road. The accused also gave beatings to the complainant with a pointed object i.e. Grip and caused injury to him. The matter was reported by the complainant to police, on the basis of which Rapat, Ext.PW5/A, was recorded and FIR Ext.PW6/B was registered against all the accused. After investigation, challan was filed against all accused for trial under Sections 341, 324, 147 and 149 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. The Learned Trial Court on the basis of material produced before it, by the prosecution, convicted the accused (5 in number) under Sections 341, 324, 147 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to under simple imprisonment for one month each and to pay fine of Rs. 250/- each under Section 341 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 324 IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each and to pay fine of Rs.250/- each under Section 147 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. The learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 7.7.2007 set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court against the present respondents, though it upheld the judgment of conviction passed against accused Yash Pal alias Jassu. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. The learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 7.7.2007 set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court against the present respondents, though it upheld the judgment of conviction passed against accused Yash Pal alias Jassu. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the present respondents, the State has preferred this appeal. 5. Mr. Chauhan, learned Addl. Advocate General has strenuously argued that judgment of acquittal passed by the learned First Appellate Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. According to him, the learned Trial Court on the basis of correct appreciation of material produced before it by the prosecution held that the prosecution had been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against all accused and accordingly it convicted all accused. This well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court was wrongly set aside qua present respondents by the learned First Appellate Court by totally misreading and mis-appreciating the evidence on record. Mr. Chauhan has further argued that learned First Appellate Court had erred in coming to the conclusion that the identity of present respondents was not proved beyond any shadow of doubt by the prosecution. 6. On the other hand Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents/accused has argued that the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby it has set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court is a reasoned judgment and the conclusions arrived at by it are based on the basis of material on record. As per him, the learned Trial Court had erred in convicting the present respondents and the learned First Appellate Court has rightly set aside the said judgment of conviction, otherwise it would have had amounted to travesty of justice. He has contended that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that A2 to A5 were involved in the alleged incident and that their identity as accused, who committed the alleged offences, was not proved reasonable doubt by the prosecution. He accordingly prayed that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case. 8. He accordingly prayed that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case. 8. In my considered view, there is no infirmity or perversity in the judgment which has been passed by the learned First Appellate Court in acquitting the present respondents by setting aside the judgment of conviction passed against them by the learned Trial Court. A perusal of the statements made by the complainant as well as his drivers i.e. PW3 and PW4 demonstrate that save and except the identification of Yashpal, no other accused was identified either by PW3 i.e. the complainant or his driver PW4. Incidentally, as far as PW4 is concerned, he has stated that when complainant lodged report with the police, the name of Jassu (accused Yashpal) was got reported by the complainant with the police. PW3 in his statement has categorically stated that out of five assailants, he knew accused Yashpal @ Jasssu, whereas he did not knew other four assailants. Thus, as per the complainant he could recognize only one of the accused i.e., Jassu and other accused could not be identified by him but as per him he could recognize them. 9. Incidentally, a perusal of his statement will demonstrate that when he identified present respondents, he has not disclosed to police that they were the same persons who had given beatings to him on the date of occurrence of the incident. No identification parade has been conducted to identify four assailants, who were not known to the complainant and whom he had not identified when the crime was committed. PW4 on the other hand has stated that he could not recognize any of the accused as it was dark. If we read his statement harmoniously with the statement of PW3 who has also categorically stated that he identified only accused Yashpal and he could not identify other assailants then it is evident that except accused Yahpal no other assailants was identified even by the complainant. Incidentally, the other driver accompanying complainant, Raj Kumar, has not been examined by the prosecution on the ground that he had been won over by the accused. Incidentally, the other driver accompanying complainant, Raj Kumar, has not been examined by the prosecution on the ground that he had been won over by the accused. The learned First Appellate Court has held that even if this witness was won over, then also he ought to have been examined in the Court, so that if he did not support the case of the prosecution, he could have declared hostile and leading questions could have been put to him and some truth could have been extracted. It has further held that non-examination of the said witness has also further established the fact that the identity of the accused could not be established beyond shadow of doubt except Yashpal. 10. Another relevant factor which has weighed with the learned First Appellate Court and rightly so is, as to why the investigating agency did not hold identification parade. In my considered view, in the facts of the present case, accused Yashpal @ Jassu was identified at the spot by the complainant as being one of the assailants as he was known to him, therefore, identification parade qua him was not required but for the purposes of identifying other persons who were not otherwise known to the complainant, it was necessary that investigating agency had conducted identification parade to ascertain as to whether the present respondents were the same persons who had assaulted the complainant on the fateful night. This not having been done, also clouds the story of the prosecution with suspicion and on this material, it cannot be said beyond reasonable doubt that present respondents were, in fact, part of the unlawful assembly. 11. Therefore, in my considered view, there is no infirmity with the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court to the extent it has acquitted the present respondents by setting aside the judgment of conviction passed against them by the learned Trial Court. The prosecution has not been able to establish its case against the said respondents beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the respondents are discharged. With the said observation, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending applications if any.