IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 183 of 2002. Date of decision: 17.12.2008 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Sunit Thakur & another … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Yoginder Pal and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Advocates. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arki, dated 16.2.2001, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 332 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a written complaint was submitted to the police by Ram Pal, complainant, driver of H.R.T.C. bus, alleging that he was coming alongwith the bus on 3.11.1998 from Jeori-Patan to Shimla. He alleged that when the bus reached near Batalghati, some passengers tried to board the roof of the bus and he asked them not to sit on the roof and they can come inside the bus. He further alleged that he told them that he will not allow any person on the roof of the bus. He brought the bus to Bus Stand, Arki 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - and when the bus reached there, at about 2.00 P.M., when he was going towards his office, some students came on a scooter and started giving beatings to him. He saved himself by entering the office of H.R.T.C. It was alleged by him that he ascertained the names of those persons, which were learnt as Sumit Thakur, Dharam Chand and others. On this report, a case was registered by the police and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondents, leading to their acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. On a perusal of the record of the case, it is clear that to substantiate their case, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and out of these witnesses, statements of four witnesses can be said to be material, who were eye witnesses in this case. PW-7 Ram Pal is complainant himself, who was the driver of the bus, who has stated that the bus was stopped and he did not allow the boys to sit on the roof of the bus and they started quarrelling with him. He further stated that out of them one is present in Court and rest are not present. Even he did not state as to who was the one person, who was present there or gave him beatings. He further stated that thereafter he brought the bus to Arki, informed the Incharge that some persons were quarrelling with him and he was made to sit inside, where those boys started giving beatings to him, who were prevented by the Incharge. This version of the complainant is contradictory to the version as alleged in Ext.PW7/A, in which it was alleged that some boys came on a scooter and gave him beatings while he was on his way to H.R.T.C. office. This witness has stated that they started quarrelling on the road and then when he was sitting inside by these persons, whom - 3 - he had not identified. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot identify those boys and cannot say about those boys who were sitting on the scooter. The statement of the complainant himself is sufficient to demolish the case of the prosecution since he has not identified the respondents who gave him beatings at that time and prevented him from performing his official duties. Apart from the above, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Shyam Lal, Booking Clerk at the H.R.T.C. office, Arki and he has been examined to prove that the occurrence took place in his presence when he was present in his office, but he has stated that he has no knowledge about this case. PW-3 Manohar Lal, Booking Clerk at the H.R.T.C. office, was also examined, who has stated that he was sitting in the office, but nothing happened in his presence and he learnt about the occurrence only when he received the summons in this case. PW-11 Sant Ram, Incharge of the H.R.T.C. office at Arki, who has stated that the driver came to him and told him that some school boys has a quarrel with him and there were many boys in the bus, but in his presence no occurrence took place. He has no where stated that the complainant was given beatings inside the H.R.T.C. office. All these three witnesses were declared hostile and were allowed to be cross-examined by the learned A.P.P. for the State. From the above discussion of the evidence, it is clear that there was no legal evidence as against the respondents to hold them guilty and, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondents beyond any reasonable doubt, cannot be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court. - 4 - In view of the above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged forthwith. (V.K. Ahuja), December 17, 2008 Judge (BSS) - 5 -