THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.Revision No.21 of 2005. Judgment Reserved on: 14.06.2011 Date of decision: 17.06.2011 Laxman Singh … …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner: Mr.M.S. Guleria, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the judgment of the two Courts below convicting him for offences under Section 342 IPC and sentencing to imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.500/-. In appeal, this has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. 2. This is a strange case. The petitioner has challenged the conviction on a number of grounds including the principle of law urged that the learned Courts below having fallen in error in selective 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 sifting through the evidence of the witnesses and relying only upon those portions which supports the case of the prosecution. The basic argument is that the very foundation of the case is destroyed by the inherent contradictions in the evidence of the complainant which has been brought on the record. The sheet anchor of the argument is that the complainant PW-1 Vijay Kumar has himself resiled from his statement and as such no conviction can follow. 3. It is the second point which I am considering first. The facts reveal that the accused and the complainant indulged in a drunken brawl after consuming alcohol. The two Courts below convicted the petitioner only on moralistic convictions. 4. The other arguments addressed need not detain this Court any further. The facts necessary are narrated in Ex.PW-7/A, which is the First Information Report lodged under Section 342, 323, 506(2) IPC with Police Station Sujanpur on 23.5.2002 at 10.00 A.M. This was recorded on the statement (Ex.PW-1/A) of the complainant Vijay Kumar on 21.5.2002. His case is that he had hired the taxi from the accused from the Mandi Bus Stand to travel to Jawalaji, on 20.5.2002 at around 6.30 P.M. in the evening. On the way he consumed liquor bought by him and the remainder was consumed by the driver. Thereafter, accused asked him for the taxi fare for which developed into a dispute and they started brawling. The complainant was struck with a 3 stone on his head as a result of which he became unconscious, his hands were tied and he was kept in the luggage portion of the vehicle No.HP-01-8351. He shouted for help whereupon he was rescued by the village people. 5. This is the very statement which demolishes his evidence before the learned trial Court. In his examination-in-chief he says that he does not remember the date when he hired a taxi from Mandi to Jawalaji. On way to Jawalaji when the accused asked him for the taxi fare at Jandru he informed him that he would pay him the amount at the destination. Thereafter, he says:- “Phir doshi ne mughe pathar ki chot mere sir par mari jisse mere sir se khoon behne laga. Uske bad main behosh ho gaya. Uske bad mujhe pata na hai ki kaya hua.” Transliteration: “Thereafter the accused hit me on the head with the stone as a result of which I sustained injuries and started bleeding. Thereafter, I lost consciousness and I do not know what happened thereafter.” He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution, when he was confronted with the statement Ex.PW-1/A, he denied having made this statement to the police over and above what he stated in Court. This is indeed a very strange case. The complainant goes to the police station, lodges a First Information Report 4 about having been assaulted and illegally confined and thereafter turns around and says that he does not know what happened, so-much-so he would even deny that he made portions of statement as recorded by the police which forms the basis of the First Information Report. It is this class of citizens who are barefaced liars, who are bringing the criminal justice system into disrepute. If what he states on oath before the Court is the correct version then where was the need to say anything else in the report which is lodged with the police? Surely, this is not a case where he has been prompted by the police or any other person to set the criminal justice system into motion against the accused. Why he made the statement before the police is something which the trial Court as also the appellate Court should have ascertained even by calling upon the petitioner for explanation when he was in the witness box. Not only has the criminal justice system been abused by this man but he had also sent the police to a wild-goose chase. It is precisely this kind of practice which requires to be dealt with by a heavy hand by Courts of law. 6. Having held that the statement of the petitioner on oath is not supported by the contents of the First Information Report, I do find that the Courts below have given a complete go bye to the fact that the complainant himself disproved the allegations made by him in the First Information Report. 5 7. I must express my deep sense of anguish in the manner the complainant has been allowed to manipulate the criminal justice system. I must also place on record my consternation for both the Courts below for having not taken action against the complainant for abusing the process of law and waisting the valuable time of the State Investigating Machinery. 8. In this view of the matter, I hold that the Courts below have not approached the case correctly and have misapplied the principle of law applicable. There is perversity in the findings of the two Courts below inasmuch as the complainant himself disproves his case which fact has been ignored. This revision petition is accordingly accepted. The judgment of both the Courts below is set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the offences. June 17, 2011. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.