STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents, for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, reversing the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case giving rise to the appeal as emerges from the evidence on record can be stated thus. PW1 Hoshiar Singh has a building in Panchrukhi consisting of eight rooms. In the year 1996, he had rented out three rooms to respondent Suresh Kumar for running a private School @ Rs. 400/ - per month upto March, 1998, but he did not vacate the said premises as per assurance given by him, rather make a request to extend the period and requested to vacate it before starting of the summer vacations. In the month of July,1998, the said premises were vacated by him and handed over its vacant possession to the complainant and the premises were locked by PW1 Hoshiar Singh.

(3.) SHRI A.K.Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General duly assisted by Shri P.M.Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State vehemently argued that the learned lower appellate Court discarded the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on untenable grounds in the absence of any proved enmity. No reasons whatsoever have been assigned for discarding the evidence of the prosecution. Further that the learned first appellate Court also wrongly referred that PW2 was a close relative of the complainant and was under his influence, thus compelled to support him.