IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.64 of 2003 Decided on: July 28, 2009. Raj Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.5.2001 of learned trial Magistrate, whereby he has been convicted of offences, under Sections 325 and 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for offence, under Section 325 IPC and simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.1000/- for offence, under Section 323 IPC. Appeal filed by him in the Sessions Court against the said judgment of trial Magistrate, has been dismissed, vide judgment dated 3.4.2003. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2. Petitioner was tried for the aforesaid offences on police report. Matter was reported to the police by PW-1 Hoshiara Ram, injured. Said Hoshiara Ram reported to the police on 12.9.1996 that on the previous night, around 11.30 PM, when he went out of his house to urinate, petitioner, who was standing outside his house, assaulted him, when he asked him why he was present there at that odd hour of the night. Petitioner, as per PW-1 Hoshiara Ram’s report and testimony in the Court, threw him on the ground, sat on his chest and dealt a few blows on his mouth, as a result of which some of his teeth were broken and some others got dislocated. Police investigated the matter. PW-1 Hoshiara Ram was got medically examined. Medical examination showed that he had sustained injuries on his gums and some of his teeth were broken. Police visited the spot and recovered one broken tooth. When PW-1 Hoshiara Ram raised alarm, his two wives, namely PW-3 Gorkhi Devi and PW-5 Chhimbo Devi came out and they rescued him. 3. Prosecution examined Hoshiara Ram, injured as PW-1, his two wives Gorkhi Devi and Chhimbo Devi as PW-3 and PW-5, respectively and …3… Dr. Lokinder Barotra, who conducted Hoshiara Ram’s medical examination as PW-4, to prove its case. 4. Petitioner threw suggestion to PW-3 Gorkhi Devi that it being dark, the assailant could not be identified. No such suggestion was thrown to the injured. PW-5 Chhimbo Devi stated that the petitioner belonged to her village and so she had identified him. 5. Learned trial Court believed the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as aforesaid. Petitioner’s appeal has been dismissed by the Sessions court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it being dark, PW-1 Hoshiara Ram and his wives could not have identified the assailant. There does not seem to be any merit in the submission. No suggestion was put to PW-1 Hoshiara Ram that he was not in a position to identify the assailant, on account of darkness. PW-1 Hoshiara Ram very categorically stated that it was the petitioner, who assaulted him. Not only this, he stated that after …4… throwing him on the ground, petitioner sat on his chest and dealt blows on his mouth. If a person sits on the chest of the other and thereby comes very close to that other person, he can easily be identified by the victim even in the night. In the present case, it appears, the petitioner was known to PW-1 Hoshiara Ram from before, as he hails from the village of his second wife PW-5 Chhimbo Devi, who very categorically stated that the petitioner belonged to her village. 8. No other point has been urged. 9. In view of the above stated position, I see no merit in the present petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. July 28, 2009 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J.