Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.295 of 2003. Dated of Decision: May 7, 2010. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Sandeep Kumar. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant : Mr. J.S. Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Ms. Vidhushi, Sharma, Advocate, vice Ms. Bindiya Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral) : The respondent was acquitted for the offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and his acquittal has been challenged in this appeal. 2. Heard and gone through the record of the case. 3. Complainant Lekh Raj was a Pharmacist in Primary Health Centre Paragpur. On 22nd July, 1995, the doctor was not present in the said dispensary, but the complainant was sitting in the OPD room and was examining the patients. The respondent is alleged to have entered his room and enquired about the doctor - 2 - repeatedly. When he could not get the satisfactory answer, he is alleged to have manhandled the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant called his Peon Rumel Singh and Laboratory Attendant, who relieved him from the clutches of the respondent. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the respondent obstructed the complainant from discharging his duties as a public servant, as such, a case was registered against him in terms of FIR No.116 of 1995, in Police Station Jawalamukhi, which culminated into the police challan bearing Cr. Case No.122-II/99/97. At the end of the trial, learned trial Court acquitted the respondent on 29th January, 2003, on the grounds of material contradictions and also the conflicting identity of the respondent. 4. Although, the complainant as PW1 testified that respondent had deterred him in discharging of his duties as aforesaid, but in cross-examination, he categorically stated that PW2 Rumel Singh, Peon and PW3 Hukam Chand, Laboratory Attendant were called to his room, but at that time, respondent had escaped from the place of alleged occurrence. 5. Pertinently, PW2 Rumel Singh, Peon stated that he did not see the respondent misbehaving with the - 3 - complainant. He further stated that Hukam Chand followed him in the room of the complainant, meaning thereby when Hukam Chand entered into room of the complainant, the respondent was not there. But PW3 Hukam Chand stated that he had seen the respondent misbehaving with the complainant. In this way, the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses have become self contradictory creating a doubt in the probity of the prosecution case. Further at the relevant time, there were 10/12 patients inside the OPD room, as stated by PW2, but PW3 states that there was only one patient. None of the patients was cited as a witness to substantiate the case of the complainant. The complainant did not know the respondent earlier to the incident and it has come on record that he came to know about him from one Hem Raj, who was not examined, therefore, the learned trial Court had rightly picked up the aforesaid discrepancies while appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution and after discussing it, came to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove the case against the respondent beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal, hence the appeal is dismissed. - 4 - 6. The respondent is discharged from his bail bonds, entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of this case. 7. Send down the records. May 7, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.