1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 139 of 2003. Date of Decision: 15.6.2010. _______________________________________________ Ram Gopal ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Mr. S.D.Vasudeva, Advocate. For Respondent. : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Additional Advocate General and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment of conviction cannot be sustained for the reason that it was passed by the Sessions Judge with a predetermined. In other words, bias is pleaded and alleged against the learned court. This point can be disposed of at the threshold. I do not find anything from the reading of the judgment which would show that the Judge is biased. The allegation is baseless and not supported by any material on Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 the record. The second ground made by the petitioner is that the judgment is full of contradictions which are material and go to the very root of the case. Both the courts below i.e. the learned trial Court as also the learned appellate Court have dealt with the evidence of each and every witness. Reading the statement of complainant Divya Devi (PW-1), I do not find that it in any manner exonerates the petitioner. In fact, she has described the assault and the injuries sustained by her in a clear and vivid manner. Minor contradictions which have been pointed out do not go to the root of the case nor exonerates the petitioner of his criminality of the acts committed by him. The learned trial Court while sentencing the petitioner, has imposed sentence of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 324 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 506 I.P.C. The learned appellate court has reduced the sentence to three months simple imprisonment under Section 324 and two months imprisonment under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. This is a fit case where notice for enhancement should have been issued. The learned Sessions Judge has been lenient and the first submission made by the learned counsel that he was biased, cannot be sustained on this ground also. I do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the petitioner shall stand cancelled. A direction is issued to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at 3 Dharamshala to ensure the sentence is carried out and executed. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. June 15, 2010(R)