IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 730/2002. Date of Decision: 8.7.2009. _______________________________________________ State of H. P. Appellant. Versus Subhash Chand Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deptuy Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. T.S.Chauhan, Advocate. ____________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,j(ORAL) The respondent was tried and acquitted by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.281-II/1999 decided on 23.7.202 of the offence punishable under Sections 353, 186 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code. In short the prosecution case can be stated thus: In the month of December, 1998, the respondent was posted as Jail Warden. On 2.12.1998 he boarded bus No. HP-37-0308 belonging to Baijnath Depot. PW2 Prittam Singh was the driver of the bus. Sh. Ambika Parshad complainant was its Conductor. On 3.12.1998 the bus was Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 on route Baijnath from Chandigarh at about 1 a.m. when it reached near Nagrota village, the respondent along with one more person boarded the bus. It is alleged that the respondent disclosed that he was the staff member and on demand he had shown his identity card to the Conductor. On its perusal complainant Ambika Parshad entertained some doubts. As such asked the respondent to pay Rs.3/- as night extra charges to take him to the place of his destination. It is alleged that the respondent abused the Conductor. When the bus reached near the place known as ‘Nalhati’, the respondent allegedly manhandled the bus Conductor and slapped him which caused injury to his teeth. At that time, the respondent was allegedly in a drunken condition. The driver of the bus stopped the bus. The matter was reported to the police. Ambika Prasad, Conductor of the aforesaid bus got his statement (Ext.PW1/A) recorded to the police on the basis of which F.I.R. was lodged. He was got medically examined. He complained of the pain on the joint of the right thumb but there was no sign of external injury. His left upper canine was slightly loose having a cavity, but there was also no sign of any injury. He was referred to the Dental Surgeon. As per the opinion of the Dental Surgeon there was an oral cavity in the teeth which caused the pain to him. The X-ray of the teeth was advised but no fracture was detected. 3 The record with respect to the appointment and posting of the Ambika Prasad was taken into possession along with the duty Chart and on completing the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondent. The respondent was chargesheeted for the aforesaid offence to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the end of the trial the respondent was acquitted and his acquittal has been challenged in this appeal by the State. Shri Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant argued with vehemence that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in right perspective and if it is re-examined there are grounds to convert the acquittal into conviction. Sh.T.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment of acquittal. On re-appraisal of the evidence, I do not find that the findings of acquittal are perverse. There is only self serving statement of PW1 Ambika Parshad, Conductor of the bus with respect to the assault on him. However, in cross-examination he admitted that the respondent had told that he was an employee in the jail Department and could avail the facility of the bus journey free of any charges. But according to him, the identity card shown to him by the respondent was different. He denied the 4 defence put to him that when the bus Conductor had tried to punch his identity card the respondent objected to it which caused scuffle and in that scuffle he might have sustained injury. To some extent the driver of the bus PW2 Pritam Chand has supported the version of the bus Conductor. But in cross-examination he admitted that he was busy in driving the vehicle and he did not know as to who was fighting with whom. He came to know about the alleged incident only in the Police Station. PW4 Rajesh Kumar was the passenger in the bus but he did not support the case of the prosecution rather he substantiated the defence put by the accused. He admitted that when the bus Conductor had tried to punch the identity card of the respondent, he snatched it which caused scuffle. He categorically stated that the respondent did not beat the complainant in his presence in any manner. PW6 Vijay Kumar the Investigating Officer of this case has also lent strength to the case of the accused to the extent that the Conductor had tried to punch the identity card of the respondent to which he objected. Further stated that the Conductor had no authority to punch the identity card of the respondent. On re-appraisal of the evidence aforesaid, I find that the respondent was able to probablise his defence. Further with respect to injury No.1 whereby the 5 complainant was complaining the pain on the joint of the right thumb, fortifies the case of the respondent that the scuffle might have taken place. Further the Dental Surgeon opined that there was oral cavity which has caused the mobility of his tooth. Although the teeth was present and no fracture was detected. Significantly, there was also no sign of ecphymosis on his lips which could substantiate the case of the complainant with respect to the injury having been caused by the complainant. In these circumstances when the case of the respondent stands probablised the incident spoken by the complainant is shrouded by the doubt. The benefit of doubt has to be given to the respondent which was rightly extended to the respondent by the learned trial Court. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find that the judgment of the learned trial Court is perverse. As such the appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any point during the proceeding of the case. (Surinder Singh), Judge. July 8,2009(R)