IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 453 of 2001. Judgment reserved on: 24.7.2008 Date of decision: 25.7.2008. State of H.P. …….Appellant Vs. Gulzar and Ors. …… Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr. Ansul Bansal, Additional Advocate General . For the Respondents : Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge. 1. This appeal has been directed against judgment dated 10.3.1999 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur in Criminal case No.62-II/94, acquitting the respondents under Sections 353, 332, 341 read with Section 149 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that PW-2 Manohar Lal was driving bus bearing registration No.HP-38-2427 on 11.9.1993 and PW-3 Rakesh Kumar was conductor in the said bus. At about 7 AM the bus reached 32 mile, the accused stopped the bus and dragged out Rakesh Kumar conductor from the bus and gave beatings to him. Thereafter the accused also dragged Manohar Lal Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… driver and also gave beatings to him. The matter was reported to the police. The injured Manohar Lal and Rakesh Kumar were got medically examined. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. The accused were charged under Sections 353, 332, 341 read with Section 149 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which they denied the prosecution case. No evidence in defence was led. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate after conclusion of the trial, acquitted the respondents on 10.3.1999, hence appeal by the State. 3. I have heard the learned Addl. Advocate General for the State and Mr. Anuj Nag, learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the record. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that the learned trial Court has misconstrued and misinterpreted the material on record and has erred in acquitting the respondents-accused. The prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent evidence. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that no fault can be found in the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned trial Court. 4. PW-2 Manohar Lal has stated that on 11.9.1993 he was driving bus bearing registration No.HP-38-2427, which reached near 32 mile at about 7 AM. He has stated that 7-8 persons stopped the bus, out of them 3-4 persons having dandas dragged Rakesh Kumar …3… conductor from the bus and gave beatings to him. One person dragged him from the bus and gave beatings to him also. The matter was reported to the police. He was got medically examined. Police recovered dandas Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2. PW-3 Rakesh Kumar has stated that 4-5 persons gave beatings to him with dandas and he became unconscious. The police did not record his statement. He has also stated that he does not know the names of the accused. PW-1 Pankaj Kumar did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. He was cross-examined by the prosecution but even then he did not support the prosecution. PW-7 Pawan Thakur has stated that conductor was beaten by some persons but he could not recognize those persons. 5. PW-8 Thakur Dass has stated that he was travelling in bus bearing registration No.HP-38-2427 and some quarrel took place with the conductor and four persons gave beatings to the conductor but he could not recognize those persons. PW-9 Dr. Vivek Kumar has proved MLC Ex.PW-9/A of Rakesh Kumar and MLC Ex.PW-9/B of Manohar Lal. PW-11 Dr. R.K. Mahajan has given his opinion on the basis of X-ray which are Ex.PW-11/A and Ex.PW-11/B. The other witnesses are not the witnesses of occurrence. 6. PW-1, PW-7 and PW-8 have not supported the prosecution case nor they have identified the accused. PW-2 Manohar Lal driver and PW-3 Rakesh Kumar conductor of the bus have not identified the accused. No identification parade was conducted in the case. PW-2 Manohar Lal has stated that 3-4 …4… persons were having dandas, similarly PW-3 has stated that 4-5 persons were having dandas with them but recovery of only two dandas was made. The Addl. learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has properly appreciated the material on record and has rightly recorded the findings that the prosecution has failed to prove the case. No case for interference has been made out. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds discharged. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge July 25, 2008 (sks)