IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.203 of 2003. Date of Decision: 10th May, 2010. ____________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus Kabil Singh and another ……..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? Yes. For the appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) : Respondents were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in Criminal Case No.29-II of 2002. Vide its detailed judgment passed on 18th December, 2002, they were acquitted by the learned trial Court. State felt aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, as such has been made challenge in this present appeal. 2. Heard and gone through the record. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 3. The prosecution case giving rise to the present case is that on 17th June, 1998 around 3.00 p.m. HRTC bus bearing registration No.HP-31-1524 being driven by complainant Harminder Singh reached near the place known as “Manjgran”. Near the damaged culvert from the opposite side truck bearing No.PCB-4218 driven by Baljeet Singh respondent appeared. The complainant gave the signal to stop his truck, so as to make it convenient for his bus to cross. It is alleged that respondent Baljeet Singh crossed the culvert, parked his truck on the side of the road, got down and dragged the complainant from his driving seat. In this pursuit he was also followed by co-accused Kabil Singh, the driver of another truck bearing registration No.HR-26-E-6951 and his cleaner Om Parkash. All of them started gave beatings. Accused Om Parkash is alleged to have given the Gandasi blow which struck against the thumb of the complainant and other co-accused fisticuffed him and also gave Danda blows. Thus, the complainant was deterred from discharging the official duty. 4. The matter was reported to police. The statement of the complainant (Ext.PW-8/A) was - 3 - recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which culminated into FIR Ext.PW-6/A. 5. PW-9 Head Constable Dalip Kumar investigated the case. He prepared the site plan Ext.PW-9/B, recorded the statements of the witnesses and got the complainant medically examined. Respondent Kabil Singh had also sustained injuries. He was also got medically examined. Challan was presented against the respondents under the aforesaid Sections. 6. One of the accused, namely, Om Parkash absconded, as such declared Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 18th June, 2002 and the trial proceeded only against the respondents. 7. Finding a prima facie case against the respondents, they were charge-sheeted for the said offences. They adjured the guilt and claimed trial. 8. To prove its case the prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They put up the defence that the complainant party gave beatings to them in which Kabil Singh sustained injuries. They alleged that the complainant party in connivance with the police had foisted a false case against them. No defence was - 4 - led. At the end of the trial, the respondents were acquitted on the grounds that the injuries on the person of Kabil Singh were not explained and that the prosecution failed to prove that as to who was the aggressor. 9. As stated above, initially, the case of the prosecution has been that “Gandasi” blow was given by Om Parkash, absconding accused, but when examined in the Court he stated that it was given by Kabil Singh respondent, which is a material contradiction and goes to the root of the case. Further, the complainant (PW-8) stated that two trucks were coming from the opposite side near the place “Manjgran”. He gave signal to stop and reverse the vehicle so as to make convenient for him to pass through his bus but the driver of the truck started abusing him. He was dragged from his driving seat, thereafter given beatings. Against this, PW-3 Chetan Rathore stated that the driver of the bus was not dragged by the respondents, but stated that he had himself alighted from the bus. He further stated that the work was in progress to repair the culvert on the place of the incident. Only one way traffic was opened. There were many trucks behind the trucks of the respondents. Truck of respondent Baljeet Singh - 5 - had already crossed the culvert, followed by the truck of respondent Kabil Singh. He also admitted that some drivers were sitting in the bus of the complainant. They had also come out of the bus. A wordily duel went on between the bus driver and the truck drivers. The truck drivers were given beatings, but the people who were present there saved them to avoid their murder. 10. In view of the above exaggerations, inconsistencies, material contradictions and for want of non-explanation of the injuries sustained by respondent Kabil Singh, the prosecution story has become doubtful and it is not clear as to who was the aggressor. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are borne out from the record and there is no ground to convert the acquittal into conviction, as such the appeal is dismissed. 12. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of this case. 13. Send down the record forthwith. May 10, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)