IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.660 of 2002 Decided on: July 8, 2009. State of H.P. …Appellant Versus Sant Ram 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. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 13.5.2002 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby respondents Sant Ram and Keshav Ram, who were tried for offences, under Sections 323, 332 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, have been acquitted. 2. In the year 1997, PW-1 Kashmir Singh was employed as Fitter with IPH Department of Himachal Pradesh. He was posted in Rewalsar Sub Division. On 22.5.1997, he was deputed by PW-8 Chhabin Chand, Junior Engineer, to correct a fault in the main supply line, by welding the same. He reached the spot around 11-12 A.M. On reaching the spot, he found that without getting the supply stopped from the main source, i.e. water pump, welding could not take place. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Around 8 or 8.30 PM he started for the water pump to get the water supply stopped. He was accompanied by PW-5 Dhani Ram, a Water Guard. When they reached near village Balt, respondents and some other persons asked them to repair their water tap. When they were told by PW-1 Kashmir Singh that tap would be repaired on the next following day, after the fault in the main supply line was corrected, they pounced upon him and gave beating to him. PW-1 Kashmir Singh and his companion PW-5 Dhani Ram ran towards Chowkidar’s hut for safety. Respondents followed them to that hut also and gave beating to Kashmir Singh. Thereafter Kashmir Singh and PW-5 Dhani Ram went to the pump house to shut the operation of pump. There also the respondents followed them and gave beating to Kashmir Singh. Matter was reported by PW-1 Kashmir Singh to SDO on the next day, by means of complaint Ext.PW1/A. The complaint was forwarded to police by the SDO. Case was formally registered, vide FIR Ext.PW6/A. Police investigated the case and challaned both the respondents. PW-1 Kashmir Singh was got medically examined and four simple injuries, caused by means of blunt weapon, were found on his person. 3. Trial Court charged the respondents with the aforesaid offences and on their pleading not guilty, proceeded to try them. At the end of trial, both the respondents were acquitted. …3… 4. I have heard the leaned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record. 5. Defence taken by the respondents was of denial simplicitor. It was suggested to the prosecution witnesses, on behalf of the respondents, that on the relevant date, PW-1 Kashmir Singh and PW-5 Dhani Ram, Water Guard, were not on duty, but they had gone to the house of one Mast Ram, as his guests, because a village fair was going on in the village of said Mast Ram. PW-1 denied the suggestion, but PW-5 Dhani Ram admitted the same. Also, PW-5 Dhani Ram did not support the prosecution version. He stated that no beating was given to Kashmir Singh in his presence, because he had gone ahead of PW-1 Kashmir Singh to the water pump to shut the supply. Even though he stated that the respondents came to the water pump, but he did not say that they gave any beating to Kashmir Singh. He simply stated that they hurled abuses. 6. PW-1 Kashmir Singh reported, vide complaint Ext.PW1.A, that he had been beaten up by Sant Ram and one of his relatives, whose name was not known to him. However, while in the witness box, he stated that respondent Sant Ram and several other persons were present at the site where the initial beating was given and that they asked him to replace the water tap and immediately thereafter they pounced upon him and gave him beating. His statement suggests that there were several persons, who gave him beating, but complaint …4… Ext.PW1/A speaks of only two persons, i.e. respondent Sant Ram and one of his relatives. 7. From the testimony of PW-5 Dhani Ram, it appears that story regarding Kashmir Singh having been beaten, on account of his being a public servant or in the discharge of his duties as public servant, is not correct, because he stated that they were in that area as guests of one Mast Ram. He was not cross-examined by the prosecution and, therefore, there should be no reason to disbelieve the same. Also, he does not corroborate PW-1 Kashsmir Singh’s story about his having been beaten up by the respondents, despite the fact that according to Kashmir Singh’s own testimony, he was in his company during all the three rounds of beating. 8. In view of the above stated position, I do not consider this to be a fit case for interference in the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. July 8, 2009 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J.