IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 27 of 2005 Decided on: November 14, 2011. ____________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. ……..Appellant. Versus Ashwani Kumar & Ors. …..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. P. M. Negi, Learned Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J (oral): The challenge in the present appeal is made to the acquittal, passed by the Learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 341, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the complainant, on 3.11.2003, he alongwith Naresh Narwal was boarding the bus. They were wrongfully restrained by the respondents and were given kicks and fist blows causing injuries to their persons. They Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - were rescued by the other passengers. Later on, the respondents threatened the complainant with dire consequences. The FIR was registered, police swung into action, got the complainant and his companion, Naresh Narwal medically examined and also obtained their MLCs. As per Doctor, they had sustained simple injuries. 3. The accused persons faced trial. The Learned trial Court acquitted the respondents on the ground of material contradictions and also that one of the witnesses PW-4, Om Parkash was closely related to the complainant. His testimony was doubtful. 4. I have re-appraised the evidence on record. The complainant stated that while entering into the bus, the respondents started beating him and he was not allowed to close the door and further that the respondents appeared to have been in a state of intoxication. But no such reference was made in the FIR, in his statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor in the - 3 - subsequent statement to the police. He also stated that he sustained injury on his ear, but perusal of his Medical Legal Certificate Ex.PW7/A does not refer to such an injury. However, there is only a mention of tenderness on the lower part of the chest. 5. PW-2, Naresh Narwal stated that the bus was stopped near the rain shelter which goes contrary to the prosecution version. PW-3 Hemant Kumar came with a different story that the accused pelted stones on the bus with an intention to stop the same, whereas this fact neither find mention in the FIR nor in the statement of the complainant. He had improved his version considerably with respect to the incident and appears to be over jealous to implicate the accused persons. Both, he as well as PW-4, Om Parkash are closely related to the complainant, that could be one of the reasons. Though, there were other passengers in the bus, but none of them were produced to corroborate the prosecution story in the manner it took place. There is only one - 4 - independent witness PW-5, Anil Kumar, Conductor of the bus, but he stated that no such fight took place inside the bus and no injury was caused to the complainant or his friend. 6. In view of the aforesaid contradictory evidence, in my opinion, the findings of the acquittal recorded by the Learned trial Court, require no interference as these were deducible from the evidence on record. Thus, the appeal is without any merits and is accordingly dismissed. 7. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of this case. 8. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh), Judge. November 14, 2011. k.sharma