1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.494 of 2001 Date of Decision: December 3, 2008 _______________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant. Versus Kewal Singh & others Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr J.S.Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondents: Mr Naresh Kaul, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J . (Oral) The acquittal of the respondents has been assailed by the State by filing the present appeal on the grounds that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence on record in its right perspective and the prosecution was able to prove its case for the offence punishable at least under section 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 6.10.1992 at about 6.15 p.m. PW1 Chiranji Lal (Head Constable) and PW10 Duni Chand (Constable) along with PW2 Ramesh Chand (HHG) and PW9-A Harnam Singh were on duty at Kandrori barrier. They were checking the vehicles. In the meantime they were attracted by the noise and went to that place. They saw that respondent Kewal Singh his father and brother Prithvi Singh were giving beatings to a Jawan of D.S.C. Jawan Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 came running to Guard Room. They rescued him from the clutches of the said accused persons. Many persons had gathered on the spot. Finding an opportunity D.S.C. Jawan ran away from the guard room. Thereafter, respondents came armed with lathies and gave beatings to PW1 Chiranji Lal and PW10 Duni Chand, as a result of which, PW 11 complainant constable Baldev Raj sustained injury on his hand. He got recorded his statement (Ex.PW1/A) under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of which a formal FIR Ex.PA was registered. Next day, police prepared the site plan (Ex.PW13/A). Recovery of lathies were effected. The complainant Baldev Raj and Chiranji Lal were got medically examined. Their medico-legal- certificates are Ex.,PW-8/A and Ex.PW-8/B. Complainant Baldev Raj had sustained two simple injuries whereas Chirani Lal had also sustained five simple injuries. The police took into possession the appointment letter of the complainant. After completing the investigation, a challan was presented in the court for trial of the respondents, for the offences punishable under sections 353, 332, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Finding a prima-facie case against the respondents, they were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution led its evidence to prove the charges. Respondents were also examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Respondents did not lead any evidence in their defence. At the end of the trial, respondents were acquitted by the learned trial court, as the offence charged was not proved 3 because, the prosecution failed to prove that the complainant and his companion were deterred to discharge their official duty by the respondents. Mr. Guleria, learned Law Officer has vehementally argued that of course the offences charged could not prove against the respondents, however, from the evidence on record it stands clearly proved that the respondents have caused simple injuries on the person of PW11 Baldev Raj and PW1 Chiranji Lal both constables, the statements of injured which stands duly corroborated make out a case punishable under section 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which fact was ignored by the learned trial court. Mr. Kaul, learned counsel for the appellants, while supporting the judgment of acquittal, has vehementally argued that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and it is not a fit case even for their conviction, as prayed for. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the evidence on record. PW1 Baldev Raj complainant has testified on oath that on 6.10.1992 at about 6.15 p.m. when he was on duty along with constable Duni Chand at the Kandorori Barrier, he saw that the respondents were giving beating to a DSC Jawan, who came running towards the Guard Room. He along with his associates intervened and relieved the Jawan from the clutches of the respondents. At that time, PW2 Ramesh Chand and Harnam Singh were also present. Many persons had gathered at that place. DCS Jawan ran away. Thereafter respondents picked up a quarrel with them and gave beatings to them with lathies. He has 4 clearly stated in his cross-examination that the respondents were already known to them but it is strange that no specific suggestion has been put to them if they had any malice or to show that the respondents were falsely implicated in this case. This fact has been corroborated by PW1 Chiranji Lal. Although, in the cross- examination he has admitted that he was informed by Constable Baldev RAj that he had a quarrel with Prithvi Chand (DSC Jawan) but if it was so, the suggestion should have been put to constable Baldev Raj in his cross-examination to explore the truth. However, if his statement as a whole be seen and read, he has clearly implicated the respondents in causing hurt to him as well as to PW11 Baldev Raj. PW2 Ramesh Chand has turned hostile but he has in the cross- examination, conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the respondents came armed with lathies and gave beatings to Baldev Raj and Chiranji Lal which lends strength to the prosecution case. The testimonies of the injured witnesses are of utmost importance and can be relied upon, if inspires confidence. Their testimony is also supported by the medical evidence. PW8 Doctor Rana Jagdeep Singh has stated that simple injuries were found on the medical examination of Chiranji Lal. Thus in view of the above evidence on record, this of course was not a case punishable under sections 352, 353 read with sections 147 & 149 of the Indian Penal Code but the prosecution has been able to prove a case under section 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents as such respondents Nio.2 to 4 stands convicted for the offences aforesaid whereas the appeal qua respondent No.1 stands abated as he had expired on 22.3.2002. 5 In so far as sentence part is concerned, keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took place in the year 1992 and till today the respondents were facing torture of the trial and presently they stand convicted in the appeal, filed by the State for the offence punishable under section 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no previous criminal history to their discredit. Keeping in view the extenuating or exaggerating circumstances, the respondents No.2 to 4 deserve to be released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, the respondents are hereby given the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act of due admonition. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. December 3, 2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (D)