IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 283 of 2002. Date of decision: 16.04.2009. State of H.P. …….Appellant Vs. Rajinder Kumar & Ors. ....….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent No.3 : Mr. Hemant Negi, Advocate vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). Four persons including respondent Mohinder Singh, were prosecuted for having committed offence, punishable under Sections 341, 323 read with Section 34, I.P.C., in case RBT No. 104-II/2K/1999, decided on 27.12.2001 by Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. II, Dharamshala and were acquitted, hence, appeal by the State. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Balbir Singh on 24.06.1999, was driving bus No. CH01-X-6856 and at place Macleodganj Bus Stand, driver of maxicab HP39-8155 asked Balbir Singh, complainant to reverse his bus. The conductor of the bus told driver of maxicab that there was no space behind the bus and therefore, driver of the maxicab should reverse his vehicle. On this, driver of the maxicab gave slap on the face of the conductor of the bus. Three-four passengers of the bus came Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? : 2 : out of the bus and quarrel started with them also. The bus passengers were given beatings, Sanjeev, Suresh and Pardeep sustained serious injuries and the others light injuries. Mohinder Singh was the driver of maxicab, who without any cause stopped the bus and with the help of others, gave beatings to the bus passengers. The Police came into action, the injured were got medically examined, site plan Ext.PW6/A was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation, Challan was presented against four persons including Mohinder Singh, respondent. Notice of accusation was put to all of them under Sections 341,323 read with Section 34, I.P.C., they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution has examined six witnesses and placed on record some documents. The statements of accused were recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C., they denied the prosecution case and were acquitted on 27.12.2001 by the Judicial Magistrate. The State sought leave to file appeal against Judgment of acquittal dated 27.12.2001. The leave was granted against respondent Mohinder Singh for an offence, punishable under Section 323, I.P.C. only. 3. I have heard Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and Mr. Himmat Negi, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Mohinder Singh and have also gone through the record. On behalf of the appellant, it has been stated that prosecution has proved the case against respondent Mohinder Singh beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Judicial Magistrate misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence on record and has erred in acquitting Mohinder Singh. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mohinder Singh has submitted that the prosecution had prosecuted four persons including Mohinder Singh with one story. The learned Judicial Magistrate has acquitted all the : 3 : four, this Court has granted leave against Mohinder Singh under Section 323, I.P.C. only and not against any other accused for any offence. In other words, the Judgment of acquittal dated 27.12.2001 has attained finality against three co-accused. The trial court has rightly appreciated the material on record. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the Judgment of acquittal. 4. The complainant Balbir Singh has not been examined by the prosecution. The prosecution case as per the FIR Ext.PW4/A, is that conductor of the bus was slapped by Mohinder Singh, driver of maxicab, who also gave beatings to Sanjeev, Pardeep and Suresh, passengers of the bus. The prosecution case is that Sanjeev, Suresh and Pardeep were got medically examined, but their M.L.Cs. have not been proved on record. Therefore, it has not been established that what alleged injuries were sustained by Sanjeev, Suresh and Pardeep. P.W.-1 Sanjeev Kumar has stated that in his statement before the Police, he has not disclosed the name of any accused, similarly, P.W.-2 Sanjeev Kumar has stated that in his statement to the Police, he had not disclosed the name of any accused. PW-3 Suresh Kumar has also stated that he did not disclose the name of any accused to the Police. He has also stated that Mohinder Singh did not slap him, he does not know who gave him beatings. PW-5 Pardeep has stated that he did not disclose the name of accused to the Police. PW-6 ASI Chain Lal, has stated that he did not join any local witness, even though many persons assembled there. The appeal has been admitted against Mohinder Singh for offence, punishable under Section 323, I.P.C. P.W.-2 has stated that four, five persons started beating him and one of them hit him with stone. This is a new story which : 4 : does not find mention even in the FIR. The injuries on the person of Sanjeev, Suresh and Pardeep have not been proved. The Learned Judicial Magistrate has considered the evidence minutely. There is no perversity in the impugned judgment. No case for interference is made out. Resultantly, appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds discharged. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge April 16, 2009. (bhupender)