IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 384 of 2004. Decided on: June 29, 2011. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Vijay Kumar. …..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. R.R.Rahi, Advocate. _________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral): The acquittal of the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the learned trial Court in Cr.Case No.118-II of 2002, on 29.6.2004, has been challenged by the State. 2. Heard and gone through the record of the case. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, can be stated thus. On 5th June, 2002 at about 11.30 a.m., complainant Suresh Kapoor, Junior Engineer (J.E.) in H.P.PWD had gone to village Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Kharanal to inspect, on going work of a culvert. Respondent and one Karan came there. They started abusing and threatening him in the presence of PW4 Jagdish Chand, Work Inspector, Hichal, Sikru, Kashmir Singh and PW2 Sunil Kumar. Complainant was allegedly manhandled, who was rescued by PW2 Sunil Kumar and PW4 Jagdish Chand aforesaid, who at that time were present on the spot. 4. The matter was reported to the police. A case was registered under the aforesaid section. It was investigated by PW6 ASI Chain Lal, the Investigating Officer, who prepared the site plan, recorded the statements of the witnesses and finally submitted report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the Court for the trial of the respondent. 5. Accusation under the aforesaid section was put to the accused, but he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. Prosecution examined PW1 Complainant Suresh Kapoor (J.E.), PW2 Sunil Kumar and PW4 Jagdish Chand, Work Inspector besides - 3 - examining other formal witnesses and also PW6 ASI Chain Lal, the Investigating Officer. 7. The respondent in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure, took up the stand of false implication on account of pendency of the civil suit against the complainant and his department with respect to the land in question, wherein the stay order Ex.D1 was also issued. Respondent also examined DW1 Harnam Singh to substantiate his plea. Thus, believing the defence raised, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent. 8. PW1 Suresh Kapoor, Junior Engineer in order to substantiate his version stated that he went to the spot to inspect on going work of the culvert and was manhandled by the respondent, but he did not make any reference with respect to another accused Karan, initially named by him. In cross- examination, he admitted the pendency of the civil suit against him and his department with respect to the land in question and further - 4 - admitted the contempt proceedings were also going on. He denied that in order to secure his vendetta, he filed the instant case against the respondent. Though PW2 Sunil Kumar stated that the complainant was relieved by him from the clutches of the respondent, but expressed his ignorance about the stay order, if any, with respect to the on going work, whereas, PW4 Jagdish Chand, Work Inspector did not support the version given by the complainant. 9. PW6 ASI Chain Lal, Investigating Officer though stated that he took into possession the appointment, transfer and posting orders/ documents of the complainant from the department, but he no where stated having investigated and taken into possession any document with respect to on going work, which was required to be inspected by the complainant. The prosecution failed to prove that the complainant was deterred to discharge his official function. 10. DW1 Harnam Singh testified that with respect to the on going work, the matter was - 5 - pending with the department and stay order was issued. He proved the certified copy of the stay order Ext.D1. He further stated that at the time of the alleged incident, respondent had informed the complainant about the stay order, rather complainant insisted upon the labourers to execute the work. He further stated that the respondent did not threaten the complainant in any manner nor manhandled him. 11. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, in my opinion, the respondent has probablised his defence and PW4 Jagdish Chand and other have contradicted the prosecution story as propounded by the complainant, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the indictment against the respondent could not be proved which requires no interference. As such, the appeal is without any merits, hence dismissed. 12. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of the case. - 6 - 13. Send down the records. June 29, 2011. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.