HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No.: 587 of 2001 Decided on: 24.10.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh ………Appellant. Versus Bansi Ram and another ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For respondent No.1: Mr.M.A. Khan & Ms.Asha Pandit, Advocates. For respondent No.2: Mr.O.P. Negi, vice Mr.V.S. Chauhan, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.II, Shimla, dated 2.7.2001, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 332 of the IPC. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 17.11.1993, at about 2.15 p.m., the complainant was on traffic duty at Taxi Stand near Bus Stand, Shimla and respondent No.1, driver of the bus No.HP-22-0577, came there and asked him to get the Tempo removed from the parking since he had to take out the bus. He further alleged that at that time, the driver proclaimed that police officials take money for parking and he asked him not to make such statements implicating the police people. On this incident, the bus driver gave him a slap blow as also a kick blow with his leg and he stopped the said blow with his hand. _______ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Thereafter, the Conductor of the bus, namely, Jagat Ram respondent No.2, came there, dragged him from his arm, gave push and in the meanwhile respondent No.1, the driver of the bus, took the bus towards Victory Tunnel and while leaving the place, he gave abuses and the Conductor gave him 2-3 fist blows and boarded the bus which went towards Victory Tunnel. It was alleged that both the respondents had prevented the complainant from performing his duties. On this report, ASI from Police Station Sadar came to the spot, recorded the statement of the complainant, on which a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court under Sections 353 and 332 of the IPC and the respondents were tried by the learned trial Court under Section 332 of the IPC, leading to their acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that the prosecution had examined four witnesses, who were the eye witnesses in the case, whose statements can be said to be very material. PW-1 Shashi Ram, Constable, is the complainant in the case, who has stated that the driver of the bus asked him to get the tempo removed and said that the police people charge Rs.20/- for parking. On this, some altercation took place and the driver started giving him abuses and gave him a leg blow from his seat in the bus. Thereafter, the Conductor came from back side, started giving him fist blows and the driver took the bus towards Victory Tunnel. A perusal of his statement, while appearing as PW-1, shows that he has not exactly stated the manner in which the occurrence took place, as alleged by him in his statement recorded under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. Ext.PW-1/A. He was not specifically confronted with all these facts, however, the complainant was confronted with some of the facts, which were - 3 - not alleged in the statement made by him earlier to the police in regard to the demand of Rs.20/- for which there were no allegations and the allegations made were general. PW-1 Shashi Ram further stated in his cross examination that the police came at the spot within half an hour, but has stated that the FIR was recorded after 1-1/2 – 2 hours. A perusal of the statement made by him under Section 154 Cr.P.C. shows that his statement was recorded at 5.40 p.m. and the FIR was subsequently recorded on that basis at 5.50 p.m. There is no explanation on record as to why the statement of the complainant was recorded after 3 hours and 25 minutes when the police had already reached at the spot within half an hour and the occurrence had taken place at the Bus Stand/Taxi Stand and the Police Station was at some distance. This has been taken as a major ground by the learned trial Court to disbelieve the version of the prosecution. Apart from the above, the prosecution had examined PW-2, Madan Gopal, a college student, who stated that he was present at the Bus Stand to board a bus when he noticed that some quarrel was going on. He stated that the driver and the conductor of the bus were giving fist blows to the Constable and 3-4 persons prevented them. He did not state about any leg blow given by the driver or the abuses uttered by either of the respondents. He admitted that the complainant was known to him for the last 3-4 years and he was having friendly relation with the complainant. This was taken a ground by the learned trial Court to disbelieve the version of this witness. The presence of this witness at the place of occurrence becomes doubtful since he has stated that his statement was never recorded by the police and he was deposing in the court for the first time. The two other independent witnesses associated by the police, namely, PW-3 Roshan Lal, a coolie, and PW-8 Amar Chand, had not supported - 4 - the prosecution story and were declared as hostile. They have stated that no occurrence had taken place in their presence. The prosecution had also not examined the Investigating Officer, who could explain about the delay in lodging the FIR or late recording of the statement of the complainant though the police had reached the spot within half an hour. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. Keeping in view the contradictions in the prosecution case, as mentioned above, I hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State of H.P., which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. October 24, 2008. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.