IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 2003 Decided on 27.4.2010 State of H.P. ….Petitioner Versus Jia Lal and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. For the Petitioner: Mr.J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General For the respondents: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate Justice R.B. Misra, J. (Oral) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present appeal has been preferred in reference to granting of leave to appeal, preferred under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order, dated 5.12.2000, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 3, Shimla whereby the alleged accused-respondents were acquitted from the alleged offence under Sections 353, 332, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In order to adjudicate the present appeal, it will be necessary to give factual background of the case. 4. It appears, one Jagat Ram was posted as Junior Engineer in H.P. State Electricity Board, Government Press, Ghora Chowki, Shimla since 1999 and there were four mates, nine Assistant Linemen, two linemen, one fireman and one beldar working under him. These workers were deployed as per roster, fixed by Jagat Ram. On 31st January, 2000, alleged accused Jia Lal, Khub Chand and Prabhu Dayal, working as Assistant Linemen(ALM) under Jagat Ram, were assigned duties from 9.0 a.m. to 5.0 p.m. and 1.0 p.m. to 9.0 p.m. It appears, the alleged accused Jia Lal and Khub Ram raised objection regarding their duty time as they wanted to get their duty time from 9.0 a.m. to 5.0 p.m. and for that they wanted change in the duty time. However, the complainant did not change their duty timings and subsequently, the matter was brought to the notice of Rajinder Bhaskar, Sub Divisional Officer. It also appears that accused Jia Lal and Khub Chand remained absent from duty from 1.2.2000 from 10 a.m. to 9.0 p.m. for which the explanations were called for. It also appears that on 3.2.20 at about 9.0 a.m. while complainant was present in the office and discharging his official duty, at about 10.0 a.m. all the accused came into his office and requested for change of duty. On getting negative reply, the alleged accused Jia Lal became angry and kicked his table which struck in the chest of the complainant. When the complainant stood on his chair, alleged accused Jia Lal gave beatings to him with kicks and fist and accused Khub Chand and Prabhu Dayal caught him from his arms. The complainant received injuries on his head, mouth and nose. When the complainant raised hue and cry, one Dharam Pal, Bishan Dutt, Ram Swaroop and Paras Ram came on the spot and rescued the complainant from the clutches of the accused. The matter was reported to the police and FIR Ex. PW-7/C was registered and investigation was conducted. 5. During the course of investigation, site plan Ex. PW-7/A was prepared. Medical examination of the complainant was conducted in I.G.M.C. Hospital, Shimla and M.L.C. Ex.PW-6/A was recorded alongwith the statement of witness Ram Swaroop, Ex.PW-7/B. After completion of investigation, the alleged accused were put to charge. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses in all. Out of these witnesses, Jagat Ram has been examined by the prosecution as PW-1, who reiterated the version of the prosecution as indicated by the prosecution story. Ram Swaroop (PW-2), who was said to be present on the spot, denied the version of the complainant. He stated that the complainant had called the accused persons in his office, but he does not know what happened inside the room. As such, PW-2 was already declared hostile. 7. Dr. R.Mokta (PW6) in his testimony has stated that on 3.2.2000 at about 3.30 p.m. Jagat Ram was brought to him by police by alleged history of beating and conducted his medical examination and according to him the injuries mentioned on the body of the complainant were of simple nature. It has also been opined by PW-6 that injury on the person could have been caused to a person in any incidence other than the scuffle or beating. The investigation was conducted by PW-7 ASI Gian Chand. According to him, he had called PW-2 Ram Swaroop and had introduced the complainant. According to the investigating officer, he had not made any inquiry from any higher officer of the complainant. PW- 3 Surinder Kumar PW-4 Om Parkash and PW-5 Vijay Kumar are formal witnesses. 8. On analysis of the evidence of the complainant Jagat Ram, it appears that he had categorically disclosed in his examination in chief that when the alleged accused entered in his room and given him beatings, the whole occurrence was witnessed by Dharam Dutt, Bishan Singh, Ram Swaroop and Paras Ram (ALM) and he was also rescued from the clutches of the accused by them. Out of these witnesses, Ram Swaroop has been examined by the prosecution as PW-2, but that witness too had denied the version of the complainant. As PW-2 has himself stated that complainant had called the accused persons in his room and he does not know more than that about the occurrence, PW-2 further denied the beatings given by the accused persons to the complainant in his room. PW-2 rather has in his cross examination revealed that it was the complainant who has always been using abusive language to the lower staff. No other independent witness or alleged witnesses said to have been named by the complainant to support the prosecution version. So far as testimony or medical evidence of PW-6 Dr. R. Mokta has indicated that the said injuries could have been caused by other than the scuffle and beatings. As such a doubt has created as to whether the injuries alleged to have been caused by beating and scuffle of the alleged accused could have been by natural fall. In the facts and circumstances of the case except the evidence of the complainant himself no witness has indicated conclusive proof that the alleged accused have beaten up the complainant. 9. In view of the above discussion, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class has rightly found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of the accused. As such the alleged accused have rightly been acquitted. 10. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, there is no scope of interference in the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. April 27, 2010(K) ( Justice R.B. Misra ), Judge