IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 152 of 2002 Date of decision: 9. 4. 2009 Prem Chand …..Petitioner Versus Narayan Singh and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For respondents : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 10 Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate, General, for respondent No. 11. Surinder Singh, J. The present Criminal Revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, an injured witness, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment dated 27.11.2001, passed by the learned trial Court in case No. 42-1 of 2000, in the State case under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 341, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein respondent Nos. 1 to 6 were convicted under Sections 148, 323, 325 of the Indian Penal Code and released on Probation after considering the report of the Probation Officer, and other respondents [Nos. 7 to 10] were acquitted. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes. - 2 - It is contended in the present petition that the State did not file the appeal as such the petitioner was constrained to file the present petition because the learned trial court totally ignored the statements of PWs 1 to 3 and further that it was a clear cut case of an unlawful assembly and the findings to the contrary were incorrect. The learned trial court should not have given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and the acquittal of respondent Nos. 7 to 10 was also incorrect. Heard and examined the record carefully. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution has been that on 13.1.2000 at about 6.30 p.m. at place known as “Pabla”, the respondents formed an unlawful assembly with the common object to assault the complainant-petitioner and others thus in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, armed themselves with deadly weapons like Danda, axe, iron rod and assaulted and wrongfully restrained the petitioner and other persons, namely, Mast Ram, Jawan Singh, Budhi Singh etc. In the said incident, Budhi Singh sustained the grievous hurt and simple injuries were caused to other persons. The matter was reported to the police by one Shri Surat Singh. After lodging the FIR, the injured were medically examined. The Police investigated the case and recovered Dandas Ext. P- - 3 - 1 to P-5, axe Ext. P-6 and iron rod Ext. P-7 from the respondents. Ultimately, on the completion of the challan, it was presented in the court for their trial. The respondents were accordingly charge- sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty for the offences aforesaid and the respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But, however, no evidence in defense was led. At the end of the trial, respondent Nos. 1 to 6 were convicted and released on probation, as aforesaid, and others were acquitted. It is pertinent to note that respondents had raised the defense that they had received injuries in the incident and had lodged the FIR and further alleged fabrication of the case against them. From the evidence on record, it transpires that the complainant as well as the accused party was having old enmity. The perusal of the FIR Ext. PW-10/B, at the instance of Surat Singh, registered on 14.1.2001, ostensibly makes the reference that the complainant was informed by Smt. Vidya Devi that respondent Prem Singh, Narayan Singh and Jawan Singh had given her slaps and was fisticuffed. On this, Surat Singh and others were going to the house of Mauzi Ram to enquire about it. Near the house of Sunder Singh, respondents Gopal Singh, Khyali Ram, Prem Singh, - 4 - Karam Singh, Anant Ram, Mast Ram, Narayan Singh, Babita Devi and Joginder were present. Budhi Singh enquired as to why Jawan Singh was beaten up. On this, the said accused started beating them. Respondent Narayan Singh was allegedly having axe in his hand and others were equipped with sticks and rods and assaulted him. Chouku Ram and Sunder Singh intervened and rescued the complainant but when examined in the court, the complainant did not depose that Narayan Singh- respondent were having axe with him. Even he denied that Bhagat Ram, Khyali Ram and others had handed over the weapon of offence to the police. He further denied that both parties had sustained injuries in the group clash. PW-2 Prem Chand, another injured has contradicted himself in his cross-examination that respondents were having weapon with them. PW-6 is Prem Chand, unrelated to any of the parties. He was a passer-by and witnessed the alleged clash. He stated that Budhi Singh, Bhagat Ram and Surat Singh of the complainant party were being assaulted by Narayan Singh, Khyali Ram, Mast Ram, Karam Singh, Gopal and Prem Singh and stated that Narayan Singh was having an axe, Khyali Ram – respondent was with iron rod and other respondents were having sticks. The complainant party was rescued by Surinder, Bhagat Ram and Chouku Ram. He did not spell out participation of respondent - 5 - Nos. 7 to 10, namely Anant Ram, Jogindera Devi, Babita Devi and Sheela Devi in the said incident. Thus, on the scrutiny of the evidence aforesaid, the learned trial court rightly concluded that respondent Nos. 1 to 6 were guilty of the offence punishable under Section 148 323,325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and whereas, the participation of the other respondents could not be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt thus, they were aptly given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. While considering the matter on the point of sentence qua respondents 1 to 6, in the light of the report of the Probation Officer, the learned trial court examined their antecedents and gave convincing reasons while releasing them on probation. Therefore, in my opinion, judgment of the learned trial court suffers from no error and no law point is involved in the matter, accordingly, Revision Petition is dismissed. Send down the record. ` April 9, 2009 (Surinder Singh),J. (cm)