IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.370 of 2010 Date of decision: 18.06.2010 State of H.P. ….Petitioner Versus Kuldeep Kumar ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Applicant: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General with Mr.R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents: None. 1. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Indora, District Kangra, acquitting the petitioner of offences under Sections 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts for determination of the learned Court below are that on 2.11.2002 HC Nasib Singh, who was on patrolling duty with HC Shashi Pal and Constable Dhani Ram at Indora Barrier Chowk, received secret information that some persons were gambling on the College ground. On receiving this 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 information, they reached the spot and HC Nasib Singh chased the persons who were purportedly playing cards. It is at this juncture that the respondent started arguing with this police official asking him as to why he was interfering in what they were doing. He started abusing the police party and Nasib Singh was pushed by the respondent-accused on which HC Shashi Pal and Constable Dhani Ram intervened. 3. The case narrated by the prosecution is that, when HC Nasib Singh reached the police station, the accused came there on a scooter and started abusing him, again caught hold of him by his uniform, hit him on his right arm and also kicked him, on which the complainant Nasib Singh fell down on the ground and received injuries on his arm and his uniform was torn and wrist watch was broken. At this stage, Sub Inspector Kamaljit, MHC Sher Singh, Constable Shashi Pal and Kewal Krishan came and rescued him. 4. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses. PW-1 Dr.Subhash Thakur examined the injured on 2.11.2002. He also examined the accused and found injuries on his body. PW-2 Nasib Singh has supported the prosecution story alongwith other witnesses who were police officials. Surprisingly, the prosecution could not prove the appointment of HC Nasib Singh or his posting at Police Station, Indora. The Court noticed that one Manjit Singh son of Shri Jagjit Singh, who was an 3 independent witness, has not been joined in the investigation. 5. According to the case put up, the Court holds and rightly so that it would not be possible for the respondent to have pushed the complainant HC Nasib Singh in the middle of the town, abuse and threaten him with transfer and then again enter the police station and assault him. The Court holds and rightly so that there can be no second opinion on this that this is very improbable. The Court further holds that the plea of the respondent was that he went to the police station to complain against HC Nasib Singh whereupon he was beaten up by the police personnel present there. He was taken there by Sawroop Singh DW-1. This witness states that when they went inside the police station to complain against HC Nasib Singh, the gate of the police station was bolted from inside where the respondent was present and he was beaten up and he could hear the sound of the blows being given to him and cries of the respondent. The complaint has been filed as a counter blast to what the respondent states. The evidence of injuries on the respondent is corroborated by PW-1 Dr.Subhash Thakur. 6. In these circumstances, the Court holds that no case is made out under Sections 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code. I do not find any perversity in the findings or on the appreciation of the evidence by the learned trial Court, more especially when respondent 4 establishes by independent witnesses that he was thrashed and beaten up inside the police station by the police officials. 7. Leave refused. 8. This application is accordingly rejected. June 18, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.