IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.456 of 2002 Date of decision : June 15, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Som Dutt and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Lovnesh Kanwar, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 21st February, 2002, rendered by a Judicial Magistrate, whereby respondents Som Dutt and Roshan Lal, who were charged with and tried for offences, punishable under Sections 353 & 332, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Accusations, on which the respondents were put on trial, are that on 14th February, 2001, respondent Roshan Lal was found grazing an ox in a forest nursery. A damage report was issued against him by PW-4 Balinder Singh, Forest Guard. Respondent Roshan Lal confessed that his ox has strayed into the nursery. He agreed to pay damages to the Forest Department. 3. On 9th April, 2001, PW-4 Balinder Singh, Forest Guard, accompanied by PW-5 Dev Raj, a workman engaged by the Forest Department, went to Sarahan, in connection with some official work, in the Range Office. By 2.15, he was free Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… from that office and went to Bus Stand, accompanied by PW-5 Dev Raj. There he came across Roshan Lal respondent. He asked respondent Roshan Lal to deposit the amount of fine (damages) with the Block Officer, in respect of the damage caused by his ox, on 14th February, 2001, in forest nursery. This caused annoyance to respondent Roshan Lal and his companion respondent Som Dutt, and both of them assaulted him and gave him kick and fist blows. 4. Matter was reported to the police, on the same day, by respondent No.4 Balinder Singh, Forest Guard. Police conducted investigation and finally challaned the two respondents. Trial Court has disbelieved the prosecution version, mainly for the reason that all the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution are either employees of the Forest Department or they have dealings with the Forest Department. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. Admittedly, no injury had been sustained by the Forest Guard, namely Balinder Singh. This is despite the fact that two of the witnesses have stated that respondent Som Dutt gave a push to PW-4 Balinder Singh and threw him on pucca portion of the road, with his face hitting the road. Other witnesses have contradicted this story of respondent Som Dutt having pushed the Forest Guard. They have simply stated that he was assaulted and dealt a few blows. 7. Another reason for which the trial Court has acquitted the respondents is that it does not stand established that …3… Balinder was assaulted, with an intent to prevent him from discharging his duties or on account of his having done something in discharge of his duties as a public servant. PW-4 Balinder Singh had performed his duty by issuing damage report, on 14th February, 2001, when respondent Roshan Lal was found grazing his ox in the forest nursery. Imposition of fine or working out the amount of damages was none of the jobs of PW- 4 Balinder Singh. It was for the higher authorities to assess the quantum of damages and to recover the same from respondent Roshan Lal, in case the matter was compounded and in case it was not compounded respondent Roshan Lal could have been prosecuted, under the relevant provisions of the Forest Act. That means it was not the part of the duties of PW-4 Balinder Singh to have demanded damages or fine from respondent Roshan Lal. 8. Defence plea is that PW-4 Balinder Singh made illegal demand for money and when his demand was not met he lodged a false report against him and his companion Som Dutt. The plea, when seen in the light of the fact that it was none of the duties of PW-4 Balinder Singh to have asked respondent Roshan Lal to pay fine, in respect of the damage report, stands probabilized. In view of the abovestated position, I do not think this to be a fit case for interference in the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. June 15, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J